Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FOREMEN AND STAFF MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY (APPLICATION OF RULES) ETC. (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Prince of Wales (Investiture)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what special seating accommodation for the aged and the infirm he is arranging to provide at the Investiture of the Prince of Wales at Caernarvon Castle.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): The guest list is still under consideration and until this has been completed it is impossible to say what proportion of the guests will be aged and infirm and what special arrangements, if any, need to be made for them.

Mr. Hughes: What is likely to be the price of seats in the front row for old-age pensioners?

Mr. Thomas: I hope to communicate with my hon. Friend when I have more information.

Intercontinental Airport Site (South Monmouthshire)

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the development of a site in South Monmouthshire as an intercontinental airport.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): The Welsh Advisory Committee for Civil Aviation has

drawn my right hon. Friend's attention to a possible site on the Welsh Grounds shoal, off the coast of Monmouthshire, which the Committee thinks might be suitable for development in the long term as an inter-continental airport.

Mr. Anderson: Whilst I welcome in principle the potential of such an airport to industrial development in the area, will the Government now say that they have learned the lessons of Stansted, and that the views of local people will be fully canvassed before the eventual decision?

Mrs. White: I have no doubt that there will be ample local consultation. I emphasise once more that this is a long-term proposition.

Mr. Gower: How can a project for a large airport of this kind in South Monmouthshire easily be reconciled with the considerable expansion now projected for the Glamorgan airport at Rhoose?

Mrs. White: I must reiterate that this is a long-term matter. I do not think that this will detract from the use of the airport at Rhoose, which is being expanded at present, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

National Bank for Wales

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the policy of his Department in regard to plans submitted to him to develop a National Bank for Wales.

Mr. George Thomas: All proposals put to me will be carefully examined, but I propose to await the result of the Welsh Council's study of the availability of private and public capital in Wales before forming a considered view on this matter.

Mr. Anderson: This is good news. Will my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who are attracted by the proposal initially view it not as wholly essential to nationhood but as a practical contribution to industrial investment and putting the Principality on the map financially?

Mr. Thomas: It is because of those considerations and others that I feel that this is not a mater for hasty judgment.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful that the Minister so readily saw Mr. John Ellis, who proposed the idea. Has he any


intention of having talks with, for example, the Governor of the Bank of England about this matter and passing on any information he gleans to the Welsh Economic Council before it advises him?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman should not be under a misapprehension. I was pleased to see Mr. Ellis, but the idea had been canvassed much earlier by the old Welsh Economic Council and considered by it and the present Welsh Council. The question of who shall be consulted must remain until I have the views of the Welsh Council.

Water Supplies

Mr. Tudor Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider directing the Water Resources Board to limit its study of the demands and resources in Wales and the Midlands to those areas of Breconshire and Radnor-shire where there are proposals for reservoirs contemplated, to issue an interim report as soon as is possible and to recommend to the various river authorities not to proceed with their demands for the time being.

Mrs. White: No, Sir. This is the last of three studies covering the whole of England and Wales and these widely based studies are essential to enable the Board to fulfil its responsibilities as national planners of water resources. My hon. Friend can expect that the Board will make its views known on any proposals relating to reservoirs in particular localities in the course of the thorough examination and public inquiry to which such proposals would be subject.

Mr. Watkins: What advice do my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend receive from the Welsh Advisory Committee which deals with water supplies? What I am anxious about is that the river authorities appear to be looking for water within their own areas instead of elsewhere, where there is not such good agricultural land.

Mrs. White: The Usk River Authority has applied to my right hon. Friend for an order to confer on it compulsory powers to make a survey in a part of my hon. Friend's constituency, but this will be the subject of a public inquiry, and we have every expectation that the full facts will be laid before the public at that inquiry.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: In the Welsh debate on Tuesday the question of water was discussed. Could the Government go a good deal further than they did on that occasion and tell us whether they have any large-scale plans in regard to barrages or with regard to experimentation with desalination, because the problem of the flooding of the Welsh valleys is a very great one?

Mrs. White: We are aware of both methods of dealing with the problem, but that goes very wide of the Question.

Motorways and Dual Carriageway Roads

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will name individual lengths of motorways and dual carriageway roads, respectively, which will be started in Wales in 1969.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): At the beginning of 1969 work will just be starting on two schemes on which contracts are expected to be let in 1968, the Tongwynlais—Nantgarw Section of the A470 Cardiff—Merthyr Road and the Raglan—Usk Section of the New Midlands Road. Before the end of 1969 we hope, unless unforeseen difficulties arise over land, to start work on Stage 2 of the Cardiff Inner By-pass (Eastern Avenue) and the Nantgarw—Glyntaff Section of the Cardiff—Merthyr Road. The principal road link between Eastern Avenue and A48 is also programmed to start in 1969. All these are dual carriageway schemes to near motorway standards.

Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the programme is totally inadequate to the needs of Wales? What is needed is not so much what we heard of from the Secretary of State on Tuesday—a pool of good intentions, which may stretch forward to the distant future, perhaps towards the end of the century—but immediate starting dates for great projects such as the road from Carmarthen to St. Clears?

Mr. Davies: We are fully conscious of the need for these dual carriage-way roads. The details that I have outlined come to 19½ miles altogether, bringing the total by the end of next year to 90, a remarkable figure.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my hon. Friend appreciate that the value of export trade from the South Wales docks in the first nine months in this year declined compared with the corresponding period last year? Will he appreciate, therefore, that there is also a need to expedite road building between South Wales and the Midlands and South Wales and the South-East of England if the South Wales docks are to win their battle for survival?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is very conscious of this and is examining programmes at the moment in connection with the matter.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state where and what lengths of dual carriageway roads have been completed in wales during the last 12 months.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The total mileage completed was 9·1. With permission, I will circulate the further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman try to get the Government to show their sincerity in their professions about Wales by embarking on a much more ambitious programme than this? Surely this is absolutely poverty-stricken in view of the great need that we have throughout Wales for highways, which are the key to industrial and economic development in our country?

Mr. Davies: Having regard to the resources available, we are doing far more than was ever done before, despite the importance of these roads. We are also doing a tremendous amount to improve traffic flows by well-designed smaller schemes where traffic volumes do not justify dual carriageway roads. In this connection, I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the Nant y Caws Hill in his constituency.

Mr. Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman recollect the number of fatal accidents and bad injuries caused by accidents on the main road from Barry to Cardiff through Wenvoe, which reveal the urgent necessity for a much better road and possibly a duel carriageway, and will he look at the matter again with a view to helping the Glamorgan County Council

which has not the funds to provide the road that is needed?

Mr. Davies: We are very conscious of the importance of road safety, and that is why we are concentrating on the smaller schemes where we can possibly help.

The following is the Answer:

In the twelve months ended 31st August, 1968, the following lengths of dual carriageway roads were completed:


Abergele By-pass
3·6 miles


Gibraltar-Mitchell Troy
2·7 miles


Sycamore Cross
0·2 miles


Bagillt By-pass
1·3 miles


Wharf Road, Newport
0·3 miles


Sew Road to Wentloog Road, Cardiff
0·6 miles


Orchard Street, Swansea
0·4 miles



9·1 miles

Road Expenditure

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether the 15 per cent. cut in road maintenance imposed on local authorities in 1968 is to be repeated in 1969.

Mr. Ifor Davies: Local authorities have been asked to reduce their planned expenditure on highways by 15 per cent. in 1968–69 and 1969–70—but they have been left free to decide how the savings should be achieved. No further cuts are planned for these years.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the continued maintenance of the 15 per cent. cut in road maintenance work on county council roads can do nothing else but lead to the deterioration of roads of this kind? Will the Government make a firm statement that this policy will not be continued?

Mr. Davies: Despite the cut, this is more than has ever been done before. In the light of the particular circumstances, I am sure that we can rely upon the local authorities to arrange the order of priorities regarding which projects can be cut with least harm.

Mr. Hooson: Ought not the programme outlined by the Secretary of State this week to be seen in perspective if there is a 15 per cent. cut in road maintenance? Is not this bound to have a cumulative effect, and will the situation in Wales not deteriorate?

Mr. Davies: I said that the cut was in connection with 1968–69 and 1969–1970.

Housing

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses he estimates will be built in Wales in 1968.

Mr. Ifor Davies: My right hon. Friend expects that between 19,000 and 20,000 will be completed during the year.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: What reasons can the hon. Gentleman give for the fall in public authority building in Wales?

Mr. Davies: The fall is only slight at the moment, and it is, possibly, due to the economic difficulties and to certain restrictions. Despite this, I can very safely predict that the total completions again this year will be far higher than in any year under a Tory Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Student Grants

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on student grants.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): Statements were made to the House on 8th May and 11th July about new rates of award for undergraduate and equivalent, and post-graduate students, respectively. I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 764, c. 424–34; Vol. 768, c. 113–14.]

Mr. Wall: If the hon. Lady can make no statement, can she say when the whole question will again be reviewed and to what extent it lies in the hands of local authorities to withhold part or all of the grant where a student is convicted by the civil power of violence?

Mrs. Williams: On the first part of the question, the answer will depend on the economic situation, and I am afraid that I can give no definite pledge on when the grant situation will be reviewed. As to the second part, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, the regulations which have been laid down enable local authorities to suspend a grant on the ground of misconduct or a disciplinary offence in consultation with

the academic authorities, and we should not wish that to be in any way changed.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Lady keep under review the increases in hostel charges in various universities, including those in Scotland, and also the increases in food prices in most students' canteens? Will she bear in mind that this is a vulnerable health period for young persons? Does she not consider the increase granted insufficient to meet all these matters?

Mrs. Williams: That is rather a different question, but we are endeavouring to do everything we can to keep the increased charges as low as possible, in particular by encouraging the maximum amount of student self-help.

Secondary Schools (Reorganisation)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to compel those authorities which have not already done so to produce plans for reorganising their secondary schools on comprehensive lines.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): The next major Education Bill will provide that secondary education is to be non-selective. I cannot yet say when the Bill will be introduced. The general trend in the country is towards comprehensive education.

Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us were greatly cheered by the announcement of his Minister of State at Blackpool that this legislation was on its way? But could he give an assurance that the legislation will take place in this Parliament?

Mr. Short: I certainly hope so, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is necessary to wait for the Maud Report.

Sir E. Boyle: Is it not perverse to be talking about legislative compulsion at a time when the most urgent problem facing the education service is whether there will be enough money in the next two years to avoid a serious setback in standards? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give a firm promise that he will not coerce local authorities into attempting to carry out reorganisation projects which


they have not the resources to implement properly?

Mr. Short: Resources are a very important factor in this. I have always said so. But far more resources are available for education now than when the right hon. Gentleman was in office—very much more.
With regard to the other part of his question, we simply cannot allow a handful of reactionary authorities to turn their backs on modern educational research and perpetuate this gross injustice to the majority of their children.

Mr. Archer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency the Rowley County Borough Council is considering a proposal to reintroduce the principle of selectivity where there is an existing comprehensive school, which is contrary to the wishes of a great majority of the parents? Will he give consideration to the matter?

Mr. Short: I should not like to comment off the cuff on a specific local authority. However, I will say that where selection is retained it is flying in the face of all educational research since the war. I think that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) agrees with this. Also, in areas where selection continues, three-quarters of the children are suffering a very great injustice. This is the real brain-drain that has been going on in this country for years.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in areas where there is acute overcrowding problems due to immigration top priority will be given to relieving this instead of forcing through doctrinal Socialist philosophies?

Mr. Short: I do not know about doctrinal socialist philosophies. Some of the best comprehensive schemes have been submitted by Conservative authorities. Certainly we will give priority to areas where we need roofs over heads and where there are acute problems due to immigration and other causes.

Teachers (Employment)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers who com-

pleted their training in July failed to find employment at the beginning of the autumn term.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have no evidence of any appreciable number of such teachers being unable to find posts.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are relieved that some of the scare stories which were going around in the summer have not proved true, but will she pay particular attention to those teachers who have been trained as mature students and who are, to a large extent, immobile; it would be tragic if, just when they are trained, they cannot find a post because they live in a certain area?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, Sir. In the middle of August there were still 20 authorities looking for teachers; these included authorities which have suffered from serious teacher shortages for many years. In reply to the second part of the Question, it is true that immobile teachers are likely to meet the greatest difficulty in finding posts, and we very much commend the attitude of those local education authorities which have decided to give some preference to immobile teachers in order to release mobile teachers for areas which are still desperately understaffed.

General Teachers' Council

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to set up a General Teachers' Council for England and Wales; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Short: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is undertaking at my request exploratory talks with the interested parties.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how welcome that reply will be, since many hon. Members will feel that, unless and until the profession is organised in a self-disciplinary, self-governing professional body, it will not have the status it demands?

Mr. Short: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his support. This is why we have initiated these talks.

Reading (Secondary Education)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions officials of his Department have had with representatives of Reading County Borough Council on that council's plans for secondary reorganisation in the borough.

Mr. Edward Short: Discussions are to take place next week.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is it true that those discussions will take place not in London but in Reading, and does that appropriate approach by the Secretary of State indicate that he appreciates that he has no power to force upon a local authority a reorganisation scheme of which it disapproves?

Mr. Short: It does not imply any such thing. It is simply a courtesy to the local authority members. It was a matter of convenience to them that we should meet in Reading; they asked us to meet there, and we are meeting there.

Handicapped Children

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to review the educational services provided for handicapped children; and whether he will invite the Central Advisory Council to inquire and report thereon.

Mr. Edward Short: I am sending the hon. Member a list of surveys undertaken by medical officers and H.M.I.s and of research which the Department is sponsoring on various aspects of the education of handicapped children. Committees set up by my predecessors have reported this year on "The Education of Deaf Children" and on "Psychologists in Education Services". Further work is planned and I shall be announcing the appointment of a committee to inquire into the education of visually handicapped children in the very near future. The problems of handicapped children are very diverse, and I think this is the best way of proceeding.

Mr. Hill: Is this not necessarily a somewhat piecemeal approach, and has not the time now come for rounding off the great series of reports on the different stages of education, Crowther, Robbins, Plowden and Newsom, and completing

the last category of children who are handicapped and suffering from physical and mental disabilities?

Mr. Short: It is such a diverse problem; there are so many different kinds of handicap. The hon. Gentleman will see from the list which I have sent to him that there have been about 30 studies of one kind and another. I think that the best way is to pick out the problems and have them looked at individually.

Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best way in which he can expedite the education of mentally handicapped children is to expedite the decision that the responsibility for the education of those children should be transferred to his Department? Is he aware that the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children has accumulated funds of £80,000 for setting up a teachers' training college and will not be able to implement their plans until that decision is taken?

Mr. Short: My predecessor gave a reply on this specific point. The general point is not one for me, but I am very interested in it.

Sir Edward Boyle: Does not the scope of this question to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and also the point raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) strengthen the case for making this the next remit for the Central Advisory Council? It is now 18 months since the Central Advisory Council last reported, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider these suggestions which have been made to him?

Mr. Short: Yes. There was a Question, or a supplementary question, by the right hon. Gentleman some months ago to my predecessor on this point. As he knows, it is quite normal to have a longish interval before the Council is recalled, but certainly we will look at this point.

Public Schools Commission (Second Report)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive the Second Report of the Public Schools Commission.

Mr. Edward Short: In view of the importance of this investigation and its


relevance to secondary reorganisation, I have asked Professor Donnison to let me have the report as soon as possible; it seems likely that it will be available in the autumn of 1969.

Mr. Hill: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Commission has all the time that it needs to visit representative schools, to study them in depth and to consider the large body of evidence that will be submitted to it before it makes its report?

Mr. Short: I quite agree that it needs time to do the job properly. The Commission had started to visit schools and already been to Bristol. It has gathered a great deal of evidence. In view of the tremendous importance of this second stage of their work and its relevance to secondary reorganisation, I have asked the Commission to do its work as quickly as it can. The Chairman assures me that he can probably finish the work by the late summer of next year.

Arts Council (Research Facilities)

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research facilities are available to the Arts Council in determining its policy.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): The Arts Council employs a statistician and is empowered to commission research from any source it wishes. In recent years it has carried out inquiries into housing the arts, the London orchestras, theatre for young people, opera and ballet, and the professional theatre. The material collected is helping to provide a basis for Arts Council policy.

Mr. Channon: Although the right hon. Lady's Answer is very welcome, is she not aware that there is a case for even more research facilities for the Arts Council to make sure that value for money is being obtained for the grants that go to the Arts Council, and that research goes on to make sure that value for money is obtained?

Miss Lee: The Arts Council is well aware of the need for that; it knows that research costs money and that it is necessary to be careful in case the instrument used costs more than the results achieved.

Sea Pollution

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to appoint an expert body to supervise and assess all proposals which may involve sea pollution and to make recommendations.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Although my Department is responsible for the Natural Environment Research Council which deals with scientific aspects of the effects of sea pollution, proposals which may lead to pollution of the sea are for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Technology.

Mrs. Butler: Since the Bognor Regis sewage controversy has highlighted our lack of knowledge about sea pollution, would my hon. Friend, together with the other Ministers to whom she has referred, examine the machinery for dealing with these matters so that the best brains we have can vet possible future sources of pollution before this menace gets beyond our control?

Mrs. Williams: The Natural Environment Research Council is looking into the effects of marine pollution, but ad hoc studies of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind are normally undertaken by the Water Pollution Research Laboratory, which is a Ministry of Technology responsibility, so she will appreciate that I cannot commit my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police (Convictions)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the police force were convicted of corrupt practices in the course of their duty during 1967; and what proportion of the total police personnel is represented by this figure.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I regret that this information could not be made available without a disproportionate expenditure of time and effort. In 1967, however, 80 officers were convicted of criminal offences of all kinds (other than traffic offences) committed both on and off duty, out of the total police strength of 91,043.

Mr. Cordle: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that these figures are evidence of the basic integrity of the police, and that the screening of television documentaries which provide an opportunity for social malcontents to give disproportionate publicity to these isolated exceptions is a handicap to the police in their efforts to reduce the crime rate in the country, and does not contribute to good will between the police and the public?

Mr. Speaker: Questions must not be read.

Mr. Morgan: I certainly agree that this is clear evidence of the highest standards of integrity of our police. The figures which I have quoted show that a criminal offence is committed by less than one officer in every 1,000, or 0·09 per cent. The House might be interested to know that the number of males over 21 years of age convicted of criminal offences in 1967 as a percentage of the total was about 20 in 1,000, or 2 per cent.

Suspended Sentences

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suspended sentences of imprisonment have been imposed since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967; and what is the number of sentences activated by subsequent convictions.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: From 1st January to 30th June, 1968, 16,097 suspended sentences were passed, excluding suspended sentences passed on appeal or in respect of offences originally dealt with by a probation order or order for conditional discharge. During this period 951 suspended sentences were put into effect.

Mr. Cordle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the public concern that increases in crimes of violence have coincided with legislation which has weakened the inherent influence of custodial sentences?

Mr. Morgan: That question does not really arise out of the original Question. That does not mean that I accept the hypothesis of the hon. Gentleman.

Commonwealth Immigrants

Mr. Deedes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the light of the latest returns on Common-

wealth immigrants, what further proposals he has for control.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): The recent changes made in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, are proving effective and I have no further changes to propose at present.

Mr. Deedes: I merely asked the Question in order to find out whether the Home Secretary has formed any idea of the ratio in respect of voucher holders now coming in to prospective dependants, and when the level of dependants entering, still running at about 50,000 a year, may be expected to taper off?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that it is in the proportion of ten dependants to one voucher holder. As the House knows, the number of dependants is not strictly related, because a recent survey shows that a great number of dependants still arriving are those whose original breadwinner came before the 1962 Act, and certainly before the number of vouchers was reduced in 1965. As to whether the numbers are expected to taper off, it is too early to make deductions. As far as one can see, the number of dependants has reached a plateau at the moment, and I would expect to see it falling away some time next year.

Mr. Hogg: I noticed that the figures for voucher holders for August show a rather significant rise. Is that purely seasonal or does the right hon. Gentleman have some other explanation?

Mr. Callaghan: There is no significance in that. If one takes the whole of the first eight months of this year, the number of voucher holders was 3,291 against 3,214 in the first eight months of last year. That figure is pretty stationary. The number of dependants is lower this year than last year. I would not want to try to draw deductions from that.

Sidney Williams

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received a report on the circumstances in which Sidney Williams was released on parole; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. Sidney Williams' case was examined by two separate bodies before he was recommended for parole, and they were both uanimous in making a favourable recommendation which I then accepted. This case shows the element of risk inherent in any parole system, but I know that all concerned with these matters recognise the heavy responsibility they carry.

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman and the House must be very alarmed by the carnage which resulted from this release. Surely the time has come to do something more than to be satisfied? Would it not be a good thing if this report were published or at least made available to those members serving on parole commissions? One cannot release a man when the consequences are two murders and a suicide and then hope that the parole system will be generally accepted

Mr. Callaghan: That shows a rather superficial approach. This man would in any case have been released in July of next year, and I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that he should be kept in detention indefinitely. I agree that there are heavy responsibilities here in the light of what happened, but I do not think that one can say that if there had been no parole system the result would have been very different.

Mr. Hogg: All of us are very anxious that the parole system should prove a success, and we hope that it is doing so. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that if it is to be a success and command public confidence very great care should be adopted in paroling men who have shown a tendency to homicide?

Mr. Callaghan: I have attended a meeting of the Parole Board and heard and seen the care which it gives to the cases it considers. This man was found at the time of his release to be mentally and physically fit. He needed no psychiatric treatment or advice during his sentence, and no further crime was thought likely. Clearly, the judgment of the Board was wrong, but this is inevitable and inherent in a parole system.
Parliament has acceded to this system, and I can only enjoin the Parole Board to do what I know it is doing, and that

is to exercise maximum care. The House may be interested to know that of the 900 prisoners who were recommended for release on licence it has been necessary to recall 15 so far.

Motor Vehicles (Road Fund Licences)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received the communication from the hon. Member for West Ham, North, concerning police using their private vehicles without a current road fund licence; why no reply had been sent by 14th October; and when a reply can be expected.

Mr. Callaghan: The letter was received on 7th October and a reply despatched on 15th October.

Mr. Lewis: While warmly thanking my right hon. Friend for the very evasive letter which I have received, may I ask him whether he does not consider it regrettable that ordinary motorists should have action taken against them immediately if they, sometimes unconsciously break the law, while the police are continuously breaking the law and yet for weeks, and in some cases months, no action is taken by the police against their compatriots? Does he not think that the police should take action when policemen break the law?

Mr. Callaghan: I thought that there was a thorn amidst those roses. Obviously it exists. If my hon. Friend has had any evidence he has never been backward in bringing it to my notice in the past, and when he does so I always follow it up and try to ensure that there is equality of treatment between all citizens.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Northern Region

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what proposals he now has to reduce the levels of unemployment in the Northern Region


and to phase redundancies in the traditional basic industries, and in the mining industry in particular, with the introduction of new labour-intensive industries.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): We have introduced a wide range of measures designed to encourage the build-up of new jobs to replace those lost in the older industries, particularly in coalmining. One of these measures, the Regional Employment Premium, is expressly intended to encourage the setting up or expansion of labour-intensive industry.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while we in the Northern Region are very grateful for the amount of work that has been done in order to deal with the serious problem of unemployment, the proportion of national public investment in the region is considerably less than that required by the proportion of national population in the region? Will he remember that the amount of research done in the region is considerably less than elsewhere, and will he consider discussing with his right hon. Friends these areas where we might have some more sympathetic treatment as compared with other regions?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend's figures are rather dated now. He will be glad to know that there has been a very big increase both in public expenditure and in the amount of I.D.C.s now going into the Northern Region. I think that soon we will have other regions jealous of the Northern Region. It is significant to note that approvals for new factory space in the Northern Region have already exceeded the figure for the whole of 1967, by close on three million square feet.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the Minister say whether he has seen the report submitted by the Director to the North-East Development Council recently showing that a great deal more should be done to encourage new industries into our area? Is he taking any extra action as a result of that statement, with which I am in complete accord?

Mr. Lee: I doubt whether the problem is that we are not bringing new industry in. I agree with the Director; we would

like more, but the problem is the pace of the rundown of the coal industry. As I pointed out, the figures for the first eight months of this year are very encouraging in comparison with any other area.

Hunt Committee (Report)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he now intends to publish the findings of the Hunt Committee.

The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): I expect to receive the Hunt Committee's Report before the end of the year, and I shall arrange for it to be published as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his visit to the Guildhall in Hull where the views of the Labour Council were forcibly conveyed to him. Will he not forget the urgency of finalising the findings of this Committee, because on Humberside we are in difficulty due to lack of forward planning and the competition of development areas in shipbuilding alone.

Mr. Shore: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern and I have done all I could to spur on the completion of this report. However, as I think the House will understand, Sir Joseph Hunt and his colleagues are covering a very large question and inevitably, if they are not to make a superficial report, it is bound to take them some time.

Mr. Waddington: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as long ago as January at Burnley the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to act in advance of the Hunt Committee's report? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Prime Minister has not so acted in view of the obviously deleterious effect which the Government's development area policies are having on the grey areas?

Mr. Shore: I remember very well that both the Prime Minister and I looked at the situation in the intermediate areas and at that time we said that action would not be ruled out if the situation in those areas deteriorated. But I am very glad to say that taking the intermediate areas as a whole the rather pessimistic forecasts then being made have not been realised.

Humberside Feasibility Studies Unit

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now make a statement upon the findings of the Humberside Feasibility Studies Unit.

Mr. Shore: I expect to receive the report of the Central Unit within a day or two.

Mr. Johnson: While I sympathetically understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties in waiting for these findings, may I again press upon him our difficulties on Humberside and Hull? We are waiting to get on with the full development of the Humber, particularly with the old problem of a decision about the future of the Humber bridge.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend will be relieved by my Answer. Obviously, while I cannot yet say what the contents of the report are, we have always taken the view that it would have relevance to the case for the Humber Bridge and to that extent it should bring us nearer to a decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Nigeria

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Minister for Overseas Development what economic aid is being given to Nigeria; what further aid is proposed; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): The value of our aid programme in the current financial year will be about £7 million, of which over £5 million is capital aid and the remainder technical assistance. We have told the Federal Military Government that if they have urgent reconstruction requirements from the United Kingdom which could be paid for during the current United Kingdom financial year, we would hope to be able to provide some additional assistance for them. I cannot now give details of what aid we may provide for Nigeria next year but I hope it will be at much the same level as this year.

Mr. Leadbitter: I thank my hon. Friend for that information, but I hope

that he will discuss with his right hon. Friends the illogicality—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, find the amount of aid illogical compared with the amount of weapons supplied? In other words, we do not see the point of providing medical aid to heal the wounds which are made by weapons from this country.

Mr. Oram: The aid which we are providing to Nigeria arises from commitments over a long period of years. I see no reason in the present situation why we should discontinue helping the projects which we have established jointly with the Nigerians.

Mr. Braine: I am sure that the whole House will be glad to hear that we are taking a hand in the long-term rehabilitation and development of Nigeria. However, is there not a much more pressing problem calling for assistance from this country? Can the hon. Gentleman give the House some information about the aid being given in respect of famine relief?

Mr. Oram: That is not a matter foe my Department. The hon. Gentleman will recall that a £250,000 grant for emergency relief was agreed to quite recently following Lord Hunt's Mission.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Alarm Calls

Mr. Graham Page: asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the calculations by which he arrived at the figure of £600,000 loss when the charge for telephone alarm calls was sixpence and the Post Office was collecting £337,500 for that service; and how much he estimates each alarm call, for which the subscriber now pays two shillings, costs the Post Office.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): In 1967–68 the average cost of simply booking and completing an alarm call was 1s. 5d. and the average income 5·9d. There were 13½ million calls. Total income was therefore


£330,000 compared with a basic cost of £950,000. To these costs must be added substantial additional costs, incurred because at some exchanges extra operators are retained on duty throughout the night to deal with the morning alarm call peak. Costs are continuing to rise.

Mr. Page: Are not these estimates, such as a £600,000 loss on alarm calls, quite misleading? Are not alarm calls-made at times when the staff are not busy, so that no additional staff or additional equipment are required? How on earth does the right hon. Gentleman justify a 300 per cent. increase in the charge for alarm calls?

Mr. Storehouse: I advise the hon. Gentleman to listen to the reply before he formulates his supplementary question. He will understand from the reply that the estimates are not misleading and that the charge which we now make is the economic charge for the cost which we have to bear.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make to lour of Commonwealth countries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): It would be impracticable to undertake a comprehensive tour of Commonwealth countries. I look forward, however, to meeting my colleagues from other Commonwealth countries at our Meeting in January.

Mr. Marten: If it is impracticable to make a tour, would the Prime Minister consider doing what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has done? My right hon. Friend has been to Australia, toured Australia and met the people of Australia. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he did that, he would find a great sense of dismay among Australians about the decision to withdraw from the Far East and a sense of relief at the decision by the Conservative Party, the next Government, to stay there?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must be responsible for his own policies, but there is nothing I should more like to do than visit Australia and New Zealand. I am also under commitment to visit India. I do not accept that the

lesson of recent events is confirmed by what the hon. Gentleman has said about Australia.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: Further to the point about Australia; is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1961, when a predecessor of his applied to join the Common Market, Australia and this country have continually diverged both economically and politically and that a visit by him would be greatly appreciated at this time?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will not wish to confuse cause and effect. The economic diversification of trade began long before 1961 and has been continued since despite the best efforts of all of us to redress it.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister will recall that he gave an undertaking that he would initiate discussions among Commonwealth countries, either through the Commonwealth Secretariat or direct, about Commonwealth citizenship and the future of legislation concerned with it. Has any progress been made in preparation for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We fully accept that that is a necessary subject for discussion at the Conference and we are doing our best to ensure that it will get adequate time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with Commonwealth Prime Ministers over the Nigerian situation.

The Prime Minister: I have regular exchanges with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers on matters of mutual concern.

Mr. Winnick: Can the Prime Minister give the House now any further information about emergency large-scale relief to the people most in need in the stricken areas? Would he care to make any comments on current Government policy on arms supplies to the Federal side?

The Prime Minister: Full reports about emergency relief were given to the House when the House last met to discuss this subject. The problem still has been that of getting food and other supplies, which


are there in abundant quantity, through to those who need them. This has been partly due to obstruction, which we regret, of facilities for road transport through Federal Nigeria to the areas of the fighting, and there have also been some difficulties about carriage by air. My hon. Friend will be aware that my noble Friend, Lord Shepherd, who recently went on my instructions to try to get further moves for a cease-fire established, also spent a great deal of time trying to deal with the problem of moving supplies. One of the big problems has been the difficulties which have arisen between the Red Cross and the authorities on both sides concerned.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely the Prime Minister must realise that we now lack all moral authority in Nigeria and that I he whole House, or a great part of it, and the country are still shocked by the provision of arms and the fact that if we were not providing arms we might be in a position to arbitrate between the two sides.

The Prime Minister: Not even the right hon. Gentleman could be more wrong in that statement. My noble Friend could never have gone to Nigeria to carry out the important mediatory mission which he has attempted to secure if we had followed the policy advocated by the right hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that many people in Africa, including Nigerians, on both sides, feel that this is more predominantly an African matter than a Commonwealth one. We may regret that, but the O.A.U., under the leadership of the Emperor of Ethiopia, has struggled with might and main to get the two sides together. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the judgment of the last O.A.U. Conference, which is very different from his judgment on these matters.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Commonwealth Governments to make a joint approach for the sending of Commonwealth observers to both sides for an immediate cease-fire and for relief to be sent in a massive way to both sides?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows—and he has been fair about this—that we have been pressing for a ceasefire from the time the fighting began, with

the help of other Commonwealth countries. Indeed, before the fighting began we were all working to try to prevent an outbreak of fighting. My hon. Friend will also have seen that at the O.A.U. Conference the vast majority of Commonwealth countries in Africa, and other African countries, took a line which I think is closer to that of Her Majesty's Government than that which my hon. Friend, very sincerely, has been putting forward.

Mr. Tilney: Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Governments of Zambia, Tanzania and other friendly Governments which have recognised Biafra to bring the maximum pressure to bear on Colonel Ojukwu to accept a negotiated surrender, with a peace-keeping force, thereby avoiding carnage for his people, and will he at the same time use his influence with the Federal Government to get them to grant an amnesty to all rebel leaders?

The Prime Minister: No one would not want to use the word "surrender". I do not think that that helps the situation forward. What we have pressed for is a cease-fire on the basis of recognition of the Federal system in Nigeria, with adequate safeguards for the very fine people who live in the Biafran area. Throughout we have pressed for and used all our power to ensure that there would be no genocide or massacres or punitive measures as and when the Federal troops went through. I think that that has been our position throughout. I discussed this matter with the President of Zambia but, and it is no secret, he takes a very different view from us, and certain other countries which have recently lent recognition to Biafra, and some which at this late stage have started encouraging them with supplies of arms and in other ways, must bear responsibility for the continuation of the fighting and bloodshed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on negotiations with the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: As I have said many times before, our application for full membership of the European Economic Community still stands. Many of the


relevant questions are likely to be discussed at the Western European Union Meeting next week.

Mr. Wall: I applaud the Government's determination to try to reverse the French veto. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to continue to bear in mind that the alternative of the Atlantic Free Trade Area, which could become more positive after the American Presidential Elections, would not preclude our joining the E.E.C. at a later date?

The Prime Minister: This must be a matter of opinion. We have discussed this across the Floor of the House on many occasions in the past. I am not sure that certain manifestations of increased protectionism in the United States provide any more hope than before that such a project is possible. But all of us, whichever way we feel we should move immediately, regard our application to join the Common Market as one step towards a wider area of free trade in the world.

Mr. Heath: At the Assembly of the W.E.U. meeting in Paris on Tuesday the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs indicated that he thought that proposals from the Government would lead to fresh developments in European co-operation in defence. The Minister spoke of breaking out of a cul-de-sac. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what these developments will be?

The Prime Minister: I think that this must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he attends the W.E.U. meeting next week. I think we are all concerned simply because of the road block, and we all know where it came from, on our application. We have been confined in recent months to a valuable, but to some extent a frustrating, exercise in attempting to secure some new machinery which will enable us to develop European co-operation even in the face of the veto. What we are concerned with, and what my noble friend had in mind at that meeting, was that in addition to providing the machinery of co-operation such as through the Benelux proposals, we must try to find some content for that machinery to work on in the technological sphere, in the sphere of political unity, and within the very important limitations provided by the fact that military co-operation must be in

N.A.T.O. in the field of defence, for example defence procurement.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a very widespread welcome on the Continent for Lord Chalfont's speech on Tuesday in which he made it clear that while the British Government were maintaining their application to join the Community they were prepared to seek other ways of making progress on matters outside the scope of the Treaty of Rome?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right, but to some extent we have met obstructions even in initiatives of this kind, by the attempt to prove that most of these are within the sphere of the Common Market, for example technology, and therefore there cannot be discussions between the Six, and the as yet non-members of the Community, though I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree—indeed he was a long way ahead of many of us in this—that none of these initiatives can in any way be a substitute for membership.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As the last two questioners and my right hon. Friend have mentioned the W.E.U. meeting on Tuesday and Lord Chalfont's speech, may I ask my right hon. Friend to explain why there was not a vote on Tuesday and why the conference had to stand adjourned until the following day to get a vote?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but I am not responsible for the democratic procedures of the W.E.U. Assembly. I shall be glad to inquire into what happened though I cannot take any responsibility for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORT SUBSTITUTION

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has recently had with commerce and industry about furthering import substitution policy; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: This matter has been discussed at recent meetings of the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Fraser: I recognise the advances which have been made in import substitution, but does my right hon. Friend


agree that the level of finished manufactures is still far too high, and that is it about time public industry took a hand, particularly in the development areas, working along the lines of the Italians?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in expressing concern about the continuing high level of imports, though there has been some slight improvement in the recent trade figures, while exports have been rising continually. The problem is not only consumer goods, including consumer durables, but also capital goods. That is what the E.D.C.s and the Ministry of Technology are trying to deal with by increasing alternative supplies from this country.

Mr. Boardman: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government exercise their existing powers to prevent dumping where, as in the case of some footwear, a clear case has been established?

The Prime Minister: The Government have full powers to deal with dumping, and indeed in this present Session further action is being taken to see that our powers are more effective. It is important, under these procedures, for the industries concerned to make a case to the President of the Board of Trade who can then take action.

Mr. Swain: Does my right hon. Friend agree that further Government encouragement to industry to burn more coal would be one of the best methods of import substitution?

The Prime Minister: Coal, and of course when available North Sea gas, carry a substantial import substitution effect as long as they are on a competitive basis.

Mr. Godber: Will the right hon Gentleman acknowledge that there is a tremendous opportunity for import substitution in agriculture in this country? Will he give an adequate stimulus to that and control the dumping of imports which is doing so much harm to this industry?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously on one of the central points of this problem. He will know of action taken during the Recess by the Government in respect of cheese, and there are other products which are causing concern. We are very alive to

the problem caused by the failure of the Common Market to admit us to their own system. We are very much alive to the problem of subsidising exports to this country of agricultural products which are a long way below the cost of production and below the Common Market agricultural policy fixed price.

Mr. George Brown: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he really understood the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), which is not that coal has to make its mark competitively with other fuels, but that in those areas where the coal industry is contracting other industries should and could be brought in, which will enable us to compete with some of those industries from outside and therefore build up import substitution? Have the Government plans to do this?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend, who has put a gloss on my hon. Friend's supplementary question, himself had a distinguished record in the matter of the future development of a fuel policy, including not only the provision of alternative industries in coal mining areas where closures have created a problem but also in providing for those coal miners—especially the older ones—who do not secure alternative employment. When I stressed the need for competitive prices and conditions what I had in mind—as my right hon. Friend will understand better than anyone else in the House—was that it must not be forced on industry at a price that makes export trade uncompetitive. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have taken steps to subsidise coal consumption at the taxpayers' expense in respect of electrical production.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that firms which salvage scrap metals, textiles and paper and are import-saving to the extent of £100 million a year are being crippled by the Selective Employment Tax? If he wants to save imports will he ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to reclassify these industries as manufacturing industries?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member exaggerates the problem of S.E.T. in this field. This was a serious problem before S.E.T. Throughout the past ten or twenty years, even in wartime, we have had the


greatest difficulty in getting a full collection and use of paper and other products which, I agree with him, could make a significant impact on the import problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir D. Renton: On a point of order. As the next Question on the Order Paper is based on an all-party Motion which has the support of the majority of Members, will the Prime Minister, in deference to the wishes of the majority, be so good as to answer this Question now?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that is a point of order. I do not think that it is incumbent upon me to do this after 3.30 p.m., and since my answer was going to refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave to a supplementary question by him on 25th June I am not sure that it would carry us much further.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce the arrangements for outstanding Government business not only for next week but also for today and tomorrow.
Today, we shall continue with consideration of Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill.
Tomorrow, the rearranged business will be: Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Gaming Bill, the Medicines Bill and the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill.
The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 21ST OCTOBER—Completion of consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill.

TUESDAY, 22ND OCTOBER—Debate on Southern Rhodesia.

This will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and will be followed by the Motion relating to the

Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 23RD OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Race Relations Bill, the Justices of the Peace Bill, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, and the Town and Country Planning Bill.

Motion on the Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules.

THURSDAY, 24TH OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords Amendments outstanding to Government Bills.

Procedural Motions to renew by Standing Orders certain Sessional Orders.

Motion on the Secretary of State for Social Services Order.

At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has put down the Foreman and Staff Mutual Benefit Society (Application of Rules) etc. (No. 2) Bill.

Motion on the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Police (Amalgamation) Order.

FRIDAY, 25TH OCTOBER—Subject to progress of Government business, Prorogation will take place.

In that event, the new Session will be opened on Wednesday, 30th October.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. My right hon. Friend has failed, by error, to provide time next week for a discussion of the problem of the closure of Abbotsinch Airport.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order and that he has an opportunity—which he will no doubt take—of asking a business question.

Mr. Heath: If, unfortunately, the threatened engineering strike takes place next week is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will obviously want to be kept closely informed about developments and will he arrange for this to be done.
In view of the enormous flood of complaints which hon. Members have received about the two-tier postal service the half-hour Adjournment that is to take place tonight is quite insufficient time for hon. Members to express their views. Will he therefore rearrange business next week to give us an opportunity for a


much longer debate? This he could do, on Thursday, for example, by postponing the debate on Standing Orders, which is not urgent before next Session, or postponing the Second Reading of the Private Bill, which could also wait until next Session.

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary will keep the House informed on the possibility of a strike. I shall certainly convey the views of the Leader of the Opposition on this point to her.
I am aware of the controversy that has been aroused over postal charges. I think that there should be an opportunity for discussion. I know that the right hon. Gentleman feels that an Adjournment debate is not sufficient. I suggest that I might have a word with him, or discuss the matter through the usual channels. We will look at this, but I could not be specific about next week.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Leader of the House aware of two Prayers on the Order Paper, one concerning the increased charges under the Health Service and the second postal charges? When will they be debated—especially as the latter will give the Opposition a proper opportunity to debate the matter, and since my hon. Friends and I have tabled a Prayer to the postal charges?
Secondly, with regard to the position in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the very long and distinguished history of this House in being jealous of human rights, will there be a statement by the Prime Minister next week or the possibility for a debate? If the answer is in the negative, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is because the Government have insufficient time or believe that they have insufficient power to deal with the situation?

Mr. Peart: The Leader of the Liberal Party knows the constitutional position in relation to Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister has asked the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to discuss with him a matter which is of concern to many hon. Members. I believe that this matter should be discussed, but I cannot be tied to next week.
On the question of the Prayers, I hope to find opportunities.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is no credit to this House or the Government that by now we have not considered or acted upon the Report of the Select Committee on the Law of Privilege? Although some people may think that unimportant, all those who witnessed what took place on a matter which arose shortly before the House rose for the Summer Recess—which concerned one of our colleagues—are anxious to bring this business up-to-date in a way which is more creditable to the House. Will he understand that there is deep feeling about this and that there are a whole lot of things which can be done without legislation? The matter brooks no further delay.

Mr. Peart: I know that my right hon. Friend feels very strongly about this; indeed, I had a word with him only the other day. There is no attempt to procrastinate. I pay tribute to the Select Committee and to the Chairman. The Report should be read by every hon. Member. It is very important, and very complicated. One has only to read the Report to see how detailed it is. I am having discussions on this matter and I hope to meet my right hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Swain: Owing to the serious situation which is arising in the mining industry and the estimates in the 1967 White Paper on Fuel Policy which have proved to be hopelessly wrong, would my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate Motion No. 395, in the names of myself and my hon. Friends?

[That this House expresses its alarm at the far too rapid run-down of the manpower in the mining industry; rejects the conclusions of the 1967 White Paper on Fuel Policy; calls for a complete and exhaustive re-examination of the assumptions on which the Government's fuel policy rests; considers that in the meantime it is essential in the national interest that the Government should underwrite the coal industry at its present level of production so that it may have an adequate transitional period in which to realise its full potential, should slow down the rate of pit closures to ensure that any necessary closures are phased with the introduction of new industry which will absorb the redundant mine-workers, and should limit production of


opencast coal and eliminate the production of alienated fuels; and believes that these measures must be adopted so that confidence can be restored to the industry and the decline in manpower arrested.]

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the problems in the mining industry. I note carefully what my hon. Friend has said and not only the Motion but the Amendment to it. I cannot find time next week to debate this important matter.

Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the concern about the postal services is both genuine and urgent? Therefore, some time next Session is an unacceptable time for a debate.

Mr. Peart: I am aware of this, and I have given an answer already.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the rape of Czechoslovakia by Soviet Russia and the more recent build-up of Soviet naval vessels in the Mediterranean, may we have an early statement from the Minister of Defence as to where Britain stands, particularly in the light of the poor recruiting figures in our three Armed Services?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of this, and I have seen the Motion on the Order Paper. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary whether he could make a statement next week on the important discussions which are going on internationally about the war in Vietnam? Since the Foreign Secretary is Joint Chairman of the Geneva Conference, would my right hon. Friend ask him to make a statement, particularly if developments are taking place in this important sphere?

Mr. Peart: I note what my hon. Friend says. I will convey his views to the Foreign Secretary. I cannot bind my right hon. Friend to making a statement, but I know the importance of this matter.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Turning to the point made earlier concerning Motion No. 431, signed by more than 50 hon. Members, since the rape of Czechoslovakia by 1 million armed troops from Communist Powers took place more than eight weeks ago surely it is time that the

Government announced what action they propose to take as regards this invasion and as a result of the increased build-up of Communist forces in the Mediterranean and in the Middle East. This is a great threat to the free world. What action will the Government take?

[That this House urges the Government to concentrate with the United Kingdom's allies on providing adequate defence against Communist capability and to halt the rundown of United Kingdom forces and the destruction of the system of Reserves.]

Mr. Peart: I am not sure what positive action the hon. Gentleman has in mind. One could have a dangerous attitude to these matters. I thought that the previous question was addressed to the possibility of the Secretary of State for Defence making a statement on the state of our defence forces. I said that I would convey what was said to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain)? Is he aware that the National Coal Board, in carrying out the policy of the Government, is threatening the closure of pits in grey areas which run just below the economic line? Would my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity to debate this matter next week?

Mr. Peart: I am very much aware of this problem. I represent a coalmining area. I will convey the strong feeling of my hon. Friends to the Minister concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), very effectively put a supplementary question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this subject.

Mr. Doughty: As the Leader of the House says that the House will be prorogued on Friday and will not meet again until Wednesday, would the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement before Friday concerning the disorderly events which are threatened on the Sunday between Prorogation and our reassembly?

Mr. Peart: This is a very important matter, about which many hon. Members are concerned. I will certainly do what


the hon. and learned Gentleman has asked.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate on the urgent subject referred to in my Question No. 6 to the Prime Minister which was not reached today, concerning the large number of inherited estates in Scotland which should be put in the hands of the occupying tenants?

Mr. Peart: I have noticed my hon. and learned Friend's Question to the Prime Minister. He still has opportunities to put the same Question to the Prime Minister. I cannot find time for a debate next week.

Dr. Winstanley: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that Tuesday's debate on Rhodesia will be in addition to and not instead of the debate which will be necessary if and when we receive an answer from Mr. Smith?

Mr. Peart: I think that it is the wish of every hon. Member that we should have a major debate on this matter apart from a debate on the Order itself.

Mr. Leadbitter: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is some concern about the need for a reappraisal of public investment programmes in the regions, the amount to be spent on research and development and the dispersal of offices from London? Would he undertake to let the House debate, possibly at an early date, regional policies in the light of developments in recent months?

Mr. Peart: Regional policy is a very important matter, together with the role of the development areas. I note what my hon. Friend says. I cannot commit myself to arranging a debate for next week, but I will convey his views.

Mr. Carlisle: There is a Prayer on the Order Paper for Wednesday. If, due to the vast amount of other business for that day, the Prayer is not reached, would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to say that it will not be lost but that we shall be able to deal with it in the week after we return.

Mr. Peart: If that happens, I shall hope to meet the point. I will consider it carefully.

Mr. Ronald Bell: What is the point of taking the Second Reading of a Private Bill on the evening before Parliament is prorogued? Will there be a carry-over Motion, which the right hon. Gentleman did not announce in the Business Statement?

Mr. Peart: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this is a matter for decision by the Chairman of Ways and Means. This was put down for that reason.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Adjournment debate tonight on the postal services, limited to half an hour, can be regarded only as a trailer and a means of extracting a statement of intention from the Government and that many hon. Members, I suspect on both sides of the House, will wish to debate, on behalf of their constituents, the serious and alarming deterioration in the postal services?

Mr. Peart: I am well aware of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that my hon. Friend has just raised a very urgent question? Many local authorities, as a deliberate policy, have taken on the 4d. postal service and, as a consequence, salary cheques are delayed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate now. The hon. Gentleman must ask for time.

Mr. Jopling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the undertaking which he has given on the two-tier postal system means that we probably cannot debate it until the second week in November and that, as the whole country is disrupted and dissatisfied by this disastrous experiment, it is absolutely vital that we debate it next week? Would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that we shall do so?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman has made a point on which I gave a reply earlier.

Mr. Peyton: Following the very interesting piece of information that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the present troubles in the Post Office and that he has noted the observations of my


hon. Friend, would he go a little further and say what he will do about the matter?

Mr. Peart: I am always cautious when replying to the hon. Gentleman, who is very courteous to me on all occasions. I have no wish to be evasive. I should like to have talks about this matter.

Mr. Awdry: What will happen to business next week if members of the other place wish to persist in their Amendments to the Transport Bill?

Mr. Peart: We must wait and see.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

Clause 48

MANUFACTURE, REPAIR AND SUPPLY

Lords Amendment, No. 56: In page 68, line 19, leave out Clause 48.

3.50 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, it might be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we were to take Lords Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 198 to 200 and 254.

Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. Marsh: Of all the very many debates which have taken place on the Bill, this one is more concerned with a fundamental disagreement in principle than any other that we have discussed so far.
On this side of the House, our position is clear. The Labour Party's election Manifestoes of 1964 and 1966 both said clearly that we would remove statutory restrictions to diversify from the nationalised industries. The position of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is equally clear. They fought us on this issue in the past, and it may be that they will do so in the future. They stand firmly in favour of legal restrictions on the commercial freedom of the publicly-owned industries which neither they nor those who pay their election expenses would tolerate in the private sector of industry.
Their policy on this issue and on this Amendment is clear. They take the line that there should be free competition, but they take the precaution of making sure, first, that the taxpayers' industries are hamstrung before they start. I do not believe that it is in anyone's interests to treat the nationalised industries as if they were the arm of social policy rather than of industrial policy, and that is why, in the Bill, we aim to take the


burden of unremunerative railway services off the back of the railway industry. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to enable particularly the railway industry to be a viable commercial undertaking in which men and management can find security and pride. In other words, we want industries which stand on their own feet.
These industries have the managerial and technical skills to do this, but they cannot be expected to do it, nor has anyone any right to complain about their financial performance, if the public sector alone in industry is shackled to satisfy outdated doctrinal prejudices of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The powers which we are debating on this Clause are by no means unlimited. The Clause relates the wider powers of manufacture to the present possession of materials, facilities or skills in connection with some existing activity. Under the Bill as it emerged from the Commons, such an authority is not permitted to engage in a new activity unless it is satisfied that it can do so without detriment to its main duties. Proposals as to the manner in which the powers are to be used must be submitted to the Minister for approval. It does not stop there, because the Minister must publish any proposals that he approves. He must send copies of the proposals to the Confederation of British Industry and to the Trades Union Congress. He will be able to direct an authority to discontinue any activity, and he can direct an authority to disclose in its annual report particulars of any of the activities carried on.
A great deal will depend on the way in which these checks and safeguards are administered. The Government intend that they shall be used in a way which will enable the nationalised transport authorities to employ their skills and resources more fully than is possible at present. When an authority engages in activities under these new powers, it will be under a specific duty to act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise. That duty was inserted in the Clause in Committee, and it will still apply if the Clause is reinstated.

Sir Harmer Nicholls: Where will they raise their money?

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) asks where they will raise their money. Given the new financial structures, they will raise their money by commercial activities and by charging rates which will produce a return.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Do I understand that the borrowing powers included in the Bill and available to the nationalised boards may not be used for the purposes which the right hon. Gentleman now describes?

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) makes a debating point. These industries will be required to submit capital investment programmes. They will be provided with financial obligations. There will be strict control, rights of appeal and rights of challenge within the Bill. The hon. Member for Peterborough puts his finger on the whole point. He asks where they will get the money. With the greatest respect, he cannot raise that argument and then say that the industry shall not be allowed to use the resources which it has to their fullest capacity.

Mr. Peter Bessell: This is an important point on which some clarification would be helpful. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) asked whether the boards would be able to use their borrowing powers to finance the activities provided for under Clause 48. Is it the fact that they will not use those borrowing powers for that purpose? This is very important.

Mr. Marsh: That is the point to which I am coming. It is provided in the Bill that they are not allowed to engage in activities outside the areas in which they are already involved and have skills unless they can show a straight commercial return. They will be able to borrow in the normal way, as an industry does, to undertake such use of their normal skills.
The key point in this is that we are providing for a legal obligation to those industries to act commercially. Even with this Amendment removed, we are restricting them to an extent to which no private company is restricted. It ill becomes right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk about competition and then attempt to cripple the industry.

Mr. Raymond Gower: In the middle of that statement, the Minister said something about borrowing in the ordinary way. Can he clarify that? Does he mean that, like a company, they will try to borrow on the market?

Mr. Marsh: That raises an entirely different point which I would, naturally, like to discuss at length. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there has been a development recently in the borrowing powers of the gas industry, where a provision has been made for the industry to borrow on the open market. It was attacked by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their attitude is a classic example of wanting it all ways.
Perhaps I might continue with what I was saying about this Amendment without the constant interruptions designed solely to divert attention from the pigheaded nature of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we can restore the Clause, it will be substantially the same as Clause 48 was when it was before the other place. There has been one change made in accordance with a statement in the Lords Committee by my noble Friend, Lord Shepherd. In the Clause as it then stood, subsection (4) required the boards to submit proposals to the Minister from time to time as to the manner in which they intended to use the new powers of manufacture and repair in subsection (2). This obligation did not apply to activities under subsection (6), concerned with the sale of petrol, etc., at car parks, and shopkeeping activities by British Waterways. The Opposition sought to apply subsection (4) to activities under subsection (6), and my noble Friend said that the Government accepted the principle.
We have taken that into account in the version of the Clause that we are now proposing should be reinstated. The former subsection (6) will be omitted, and its substance incorporated in subsection (2). As a result, subsection (2) will now contain the entire range of new powers in the Clause, and all the safeguards in the Clause will apply to all the powers. There is also a number of small Amendments to other parts of the Bill, consequential to the restoration of former Clause 48.
4.0 p.m.
The issue is a very clear one. In all these industries, there is a vast investment of public money. In all of these industries there are bound to be from time to time surplus capacities and ways in which they could use their skills and experience to develop and become more profitable. What we are really asking—this is the sole point at issue—is whether the publicly-owned industries alone should be prevented from using the facilities, skill and capital investment which they have for commercial purposes for the benefit of their shareholders in the form of the State?
The Luddite mentality of hon. Gentlement opposite is incredible. How anyone in present circumstances could actively campaign for legislation designed specifically to prevent the full use of men, machines and capital in a large slice of industry is beyond comprehension. There is no argument for it other than the extraordinary intention to stick firmly to the ark of the covenant—that public industry is bad and has to be shackled, and that private industry has to be given its head.
We on this side of the House ask for no special privileges for the public sector. We are prepared to accept that because of their size in many cases and because of the very nature of the organisations there is a need to ensure that they behave as commercial undertakings. We recognise that we exist in a mixed economy and see the private sector as being able to realise that it can criticise a particular action and that there must be recourse to some other body in the shape of the Minister about the trading practices. All that has been given to hon. Gentlemen opposite in the former Clause 48, and their opposition now is straight opposition to enabling these industries to use to the full the resources, men, skills, machinery and capital which they have; and that is something that we on this side are not prepared to accept.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Minister always makes a most eloquent case, particularly for the very difficult arguments that he has to advance in a circumstance such as this. I think that I shall be justified in taking up one or two points that he made so as to


reveal the sort difficulties that we on this side always have in trying to come to grips with this very real difference between the two sides about Clause 48 as it will be and Clause 45 as it was.
I was fascinated by the difficulties, shackles and hardships which were to be imposed on private enterprise to bring it into line with the difficulties that are to be imposed on the nationalised sector if it wants to borrow any further money for these activities. Such organisations were going to have to make these applications to the Minister and raise their money under the most strict disciplines. But one could not help remembering that within the Bill there is no less than £480 million worth of additional borrowing powers available to the nationalised transport boards, and all of that, obviously from what the Minister has said, will be available to these organisations to further the activities which would be put back if we rejected their Lordships' Amendment.
I can think of very few private companies which would turn up their noses if all they had to do was to ring up head office and spend some of the additional £480 million on a commercial enterprise of their own. This money is not available to the private sector and no one in the private sector has access to funds of this sort with the little control which the Minister will be able to exercise.

Mr. Marsh: To keep the hon. Gentleman's speech roughly in line with the facts, surely he does not for a moment believe that the nationalised industries borrow money as easily as that. If he does, I suggest that he has a chat with some of the chairmen of the nationalised industries.

Mr. Heseltine: I fully agree with the Minister. The nationalised industries do not borrow money. They print it. This is the ultimate freedom in financial mismanagement—that there is no need to go to the capital market and raise funds and account to the creditors.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We ought to be able to hear both sides of an argument without so much noise.

Mr. Heseltine: No better example could one want than the fact that in the

Bill about £1,000 million of capital investment in British Railways is being written off. How can the Minister square that ability to write off the capital investment with the tight control that he says will be imposed upon the efforts of further enterprises conducted upon the nationalised industries?
We realise that there are vast hidden assets within the framework of the nationalised sector which could be, and should long ago have been, exploited in the national interest. The surest way to exploit the vast hidden land resources of British Railways would have been to have brought in private developers so that the whole community, including the private developers, could have exploited them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This does not apply to Clause 48.

Mr. Heseltine: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was dealing only with the point raised by the Minister.
In dealing with the decision whether or not we should stand by their Lordships' advice and leave Clause 48 out of the Bill, we have to understand the situation not in the words put to the House by the Minister but in the full enormity of what is proposed by that Clause. Everybody who has read or come in contact with the Bill will be aware that Clause 48 provides certain new powers for the nationalised transport organisations—the National Freight Corporation, British Railways, the National Bus Company, the Waterways Board and the Scottish Transport Group. To all these organisations, which, in their own way, are giants within the economy, two principal additional powers are to be made available.
First, they will be able to manufacture for sale to outside persons anything if they have the skill in it or if they consider they can do it advantageously in connection with some existing activity. Secondly, they will be able to sell and resell—in other words, wholesale or retail—to outside persons anything which is of a kind with what they produce—it does not need to be identical; it merely needs to bear a vague resemblance—or which they purchase during the course of their existing activities. These powers are limitless. I am sure that with ingenuity and the advice of its professional advisers the Ministry could find


some sort of activity in which probably these organisations could not indulge.
The great dilemma that faces the House is that we are, on the one hand, granting virtually limitless powers and, on the other, simply granting powers which are permissive. Nothing will happen the day after the legislation becomes law. No detailed investigation will start. We cannot pin down now precisely what we are allowing the Minister of Transport to do in the future. We are, therefore, forced back upon hypothetical examples. It is not in itself difficult to deal with hypothetical examples, but it must leave the House with a sense of unreality.
I cannot tell, and the House certainly cannot, whether British Railways will use their powers to manufacture machine tools, furniture or cutlery. I have no doubt that the House has no idea, and I doubt whether the Minister has an idea, whether the National Bus Company will use its powers to manufacture or sell commercial vehicles, car components or whatever else takes the fancy of its managers.
But what the House certainly does not know, and cannot know, is where these powers—which today for the last time we are considering—will lead and the extent to which we are here fighting shadows. Perhaps most fearful of all, this is the closest this afternoon that we shall ever get to dealing with the realities, for there is no question, in the Bill, of the House being asked to reconsider or consider the proposals in advance of their implementation. So we are giving absolute and total permissive powers to the Minister.
The Minister says that protection exists in the Bill because, after all, his permission will be needed before any of these powers can be exercised. If upon no other issue this afternoon, I would agree with the Minister's interpretation of the law. It is true that his permission will be needed and will have to be sought. However, when I think about what that means in actual terms what do I find? The Minister of one of the largest administrative Departments is bogged down with immense administrative detail and has then to concern himself with the execution of the Bill itself. He has to spend the next 12 months trying to make

this massive chunk of legislation work, and then has to sort out how to deal with transport in what I do not doubt will be part of a Bill to be introduced next Session; I know that already he is anxious about ports and docks.
Then, of course, we know that there is a whole range of future policies which have to be considered by this Ministry. All of this has to be done with the least resources, and yet he has the confidence to come here this afternoon to tell the House that we do not need to worry about what is to go on all over England, Scotland and Wales under this nationalised transport operation because he will be keeping watch to make sure that the nation's interests are properly regarded.
I do not find this a very satisfactory situation, because the fact is that the Minister cannot exercise this sort of control. He may want to do it; he may even believe that he will do it; but he knows that this year, or next year, in 10 years' time—well, it will not be 10 years, because we shall have repealed this legislation within two years of our return to office; but whenever it may be, next year or in 18 months—each of these decisions will be put to him merely in Departmental briefs, and which he will have to make by putting a rubber stamp on them because he will never be able to investigate them in any way at all.
If the right hon. Gentleman is to investigate them then let him tell us how he will evaluate the assets which will be employed in all these extraneous facilities. How will he evaluate the market value of British Railways' land, most of which has now been written off in their accounts and a vast chunk of which will be injected, after confiscation from the local municipal authorities, through the passenger transport authorities into other partnership arrangements at no cost?
Let the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what estimates he will make in commercial judgment about the use of marginal costing in the railway workshops. How will he decide, in his commercial wisdom, whether or not it is right for the railways to run a particular project at a loss, hoping for business? How long will he allow this? What standards will he apply? How long will it take him before he discovers projects in the workshops, and on paper, which are


not the success he had hoped? How long indeed! I do not myself share his optimism that it will work out in the way he says.
My suspicion is that the truth is to be found much more in the words of Sir Thomas Padmore, his own Permanent Secretary, in the evidence which he gave to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Sir Thomas said:
The number of people in the Ministry occupied with railway projects is a tiny handful.
This handful of men will now be exercising judgment on behalf of the Minister, watching over our interests throughout this great land, watching over the 300,000 men employed on the railways, to make sure that none of these powers is misused.
This handful of men and one well-intentioned Minister—that does not sound much of a commercial judgment to me, and I hope that the House will for that reason certainly join us in trying to make sure that their Lordships' judgment on this matter is upheld. So the fact is that the Minister prefers his notional legal protection in a situation which calls for commercial judgment. He has not time to exercise the former, and, with the greatest respect, he has not competence to exercise the latter.
4.15 p.m.
The suggestion is continually made that we on this side are opposing this particular proposal on doctrinal grounds, and this is supposed to be an objection which is supposed to make the case out. I note that every time the word "doctrinal" is used by representatives of the most doctrinal party in the country it produces a sort of knowing Pavlovian smirk on the faces of hon. Members on the back benches opposite, because they know what the word "doctrine" is all about. One has only to call on "doctrine" to bring them immediately to their senses. I make no apology for doctrinal objection to the powers in the Bill, which is not doctrine we believe in. Doctrine is nothing more than a summary of our own personal assessments of what is likely to happen; it is a judgment we place as a result of our commercial and social judgments.
These tell us that despite all the precautions inbuilt into this legislation in legal theory, in practice this is the wrong

way to run the economy. We are reluctant to permit further nationalisation of unknown companies, unknown activities. We have already seen in the nationalised sector a total aggregate loss of £1,000 million to the country since the war and we do not believe that the results are likely to change or that the pattern will change or that any case is made out for a continuation or extension of these experiments.
We believe it will lead to a proliferation of additional committees, more advisers, more investigators. We believe it will lead, also, to a continued and increasing pressure from the Government on the commercial sector, the Government using not commercial judgments but all sorts of mixed up, quasi-political, social judgments which have little place in a well-managed industrial concern.
I can do no better than quote again from the First Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries which gave its considered view to this House, and it will be at its peril that the House will ignore what the Committee says. On page 32, it is said:
The Committee are also disturbed, like some witnesses, by the increasing extent of Government intervention in the detailed management of these industries. For it is on the increase.
It is indeed, and this House would be well advised to deny to this most power hungry of all Governments a further feast for their voracious appetite.

Mr. John Hynd: We have been treated to a wonderfully vigorous speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), but it was not really relevant to the practical issues of the Amendment. The hon. Member was taking up again all the old arguments which we have had over many years on the main issues which divided the parties, the great ideological differences between the parties. It was noticeable that he did not meet the main arguments in the minds of all those who are opposing the Lords Amendment.
Those arguments are simply, as the Minister has explained to the House, that if we are to have this vast complex of activities—and I do not think the party opposite is opposing in general the establishment of the national, coordinated transport organisation which


the Bill sets up—if we are to have this great national organisation, if we are to have this concentration of the railway industry to make it a viable industry, if we are to have these great passenger transport authorities with the facilities which they require and the rest of it, it seems fairly simple logic that they should be allowed to use them to the maximum. We have had all this argument over and over again in previous debates.
It was the party opposite which sought to prevent even the existing railway workshops from building wagons and repairing wagons. As I think hon. Members opposite would admit in their more friendly moments, they did that because there was considerable pressure from the private interests who were concerned with these activities and making profit from them.
We do not object to this. Any individual or group is entitled to seek to make a living and to develop an activity or industry for the purposes of making a profit. What divides us is the question of how far this legitimate pursuit should be allowed to interfere with the national interests and the possibilities of viable nationally-organised industries.
The hon. Gentleman gave away the whole argument when he said that our mistake was that as a party we were confusing the issue with social judgments which have little place in any well-managed commercial concern. That may well be so. Paraphrased, it means that there is no conscience, no public responsibility, in business, that there should be no social judgment in any well-managed commercial concern. But the greater part of the legislation passed here which touches on industry, whether under a Conservative or Labour Government, has regard to ensuring that there should be a certain recognition of social values and requirements, even in private industry.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I totally accept that. I was saying that it is the job of the House and the Government to make sure that the social pattern is acceptable to the nation at large. They must legislate as to how commercial concerns should then behave.

Mr. Hynd: I accept that up to a point, but not entirely, because when we are

dealing with nationalised industries the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would be the first to say that a nationalised industry must have a responsibility to the House through the Government on important matters, even if not on the details of its administration, a responsibility that does not apply in the case of purely private concerns.
I could range wide on this issue, but I shall merely refer to the question of the uneconomic activities of B.E.A., such as its service to the outer islands.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should link what he has to say with the question whether Clause 48 stays within the Bill.

Mr. Hynd: I was merely using that as an illustration, Mr. Speaker. There are nationalised activities carried on in the interests of the nation, and many social judgments must be made if those industries are to carry out the functions for which they were created.
I should like a little clarification about subsection (4). Precisely how far is it supposed to apply? Subsection (2) says that the boards and the new authorities shall have power to manufacture for sale, and so on, anything which they may consider
… can advantageously be so manufactured or, as the case may be, repaired …".
Under subsection (4), they have to submit proposals for such activities to the Minister for his approval. How far down the line does this apply? For example, does it mean that if a motorist has an accident near the garage of a public transport authority in the middle of the night, and seeks its assistance, he must wait until the garage has gone through head office to ask the Minister for his approval? How far does it apply in the case of railway workshops and other installations that already carry on activities of this kind but wish to extend them? Exactly how far into detail is it suggested that this should go?
Is the Minister satisfied with the wording of subsection (4), and that it will be practical to apply what he obviously intends to apply in the wide terms which there seem to be in it?

Mr. Nigel Birch: I pray that the Minister is not quite as simple as he has made himself out to be. He


seems to have the rather curious idea that if one lays down an obligation upon a nationalised industry, or a branch of it, to pay its way it will therefore, do so.
If the right hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the original Transport Act, which I very well remember, he will know that an obligation was laid on the railways to pay their way, taking one year with another. How many thousands of millions of pounds have gone down the drain since then? He still thinks that the railways will pay because he has laid another legal obligation on them to do so. It is meaningless. We know that it would be completely meaningless to lay a legal obligation on the railways to make any bit of nonsense they wanted to do pay, as it always has been in the past.
The Minister was rather evasive on the question of how the provision would be financed. Any new enterprise of this sort must raise capital. How will that capital be raised? Very simply, by printing the money, as we all know. That is the point to which I wish to come.
There are great arguments against nationalisation from the point of view of efficiency, liberty, and so on, but it is the financial argument, which is very much bound up in this proposition, that I believe is becoming increasingly important. When nationalisation was introduced, in the 1945 Parliament, nobody bothered about this, or hardly noticed it. It was assumed that the money for the capital expenditure of the nationalised industries could be borrowed on the market, that genuine savers would buy Government or Government-guaranteed securities to the extent of the capital expenditure incurred. That has not happened. In the first half of this year the Government had to buy their own securities to the extent of over £100 million. They did not sell any.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will link his remarks to the question whether Clause 48 shall remain in the Bill.

Mr. Birch: I am saying that yet another great burden—we do not know how much—is liable to be placed on the economy by setting up enterprises which

can be financed only by printing the money, because nobody will buy the Government securities. The Minister will never answer this, because there is no answer to it.
That is why the country is in such a wretched mess at present. The reason that none of the economic controls ever works and everything goes down the drain is that the whole economy is out of hand because the Government are printing the money for wretched, ridiculous activities for which there is no social content, or at least not one put forward as such by the Minister. That is steadily draining us financially, raising prices and bringing us down in the world.

Mr. John Hynd: Mr. John Hynd indicated dissent.

Mr. Birch: The hon. Gentleman may not understand it. I am certain that our copper-bottomed Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity does not understand it. But I would have hoped that the Minister of Transport might be able to understand it.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) and the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) will forgive me if I do not deal with the same points as they did. The right hon. Gentleman was very skilled at the Treasury in past years, until he had to leave there in a hurry, by we know that he has retained much of his vigour and interest in movements of capital.
I want to refer to some of the points raised in the very long and loud speech of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). I think that he would readily admit that we have heard it all before. We heard that speech in Committee on many occasions and its repetition is now becoming rather tedious. However, a little more publicity is given to these matters when they are debated in the House and some of the hon. Member's comments have to be answered.
4.30 p.m.
Unfortunately, our proceedings in Committee and our debates so far on the Amendments from another place have been bedevilled by Tory political doctrine. The Tories are again playing politics with the railways and with transport generally. The right hon. Member for


Flint, West (Mr. Birch) spoke of the enormous losses of the nationalised industries and particularly of the enormous losses of British Railways. Of course, they paid until 1953. He mentioned the losses of the nationalised industries set up since 1945, but there were many before 1945 about which there has not been much criticism. That is some current criticism of the Post Office, but not much about the Navy or the Army, which are both very much publicly owned.
The hon. Member for Tavistock went on to say that too much liberty was being given to the various boards, the railway workshops and so on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) mentioned, a great deal of work is being done in the railway workshops and there is close accounting. If the hon. Gentleman has a word with the Chairman of British Railways, he will find out what is expected in that regard once the Bill becomes law. I dare say that his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has had a chat with the Chairman along those lines, as I have had, and has found out about these things. The hon. Gentleman should not try to cloud the issue when he does not know the facts.
The hon. Gentleman said that too much liberty was being given because the capital of British Railways had been written down. After all that lambast and bombast about writing down the capital, is the hon. Gentleman saying that it ought not to have been written down when so many lines and stations have been closed, especially as so much of the capital was watered capital and when much over the original value was paid for the shares? It should have been written down years ago and the railways would then have had the opportunity to break even a long time ago.
Before British Railways, the railways thought that the West Riding Bus Company was becoming a menace and bought out the bus company at 63s. for each £1 share. That is what I mean by watered capital and in that sense the railways are over-capitalised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman is entering on too wide a debate of the nationalised industries. The Clause is concerned with

manufacture, repair and supply. I hope that he will come to the Clause.

Mr. Manuel: Much more than that has been said. If you had listened to the earlier part of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept my Ruling.

Mr. Manuel: Do I take it that I am precluded by the Chair from answering the comments of the hon. Member for Tavistock? Is that your decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can allow the hon. Member to say only what is in order.

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman said that it was essential to write off capital. How does he account for the fact that in their National Plan the Government prophesied that by 1970 the railways would be breaking even without any writing off of capital?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot allow the debate to proceed on these lines. We are dealing only with Clause 48.

Mr. Walker: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a very important part of Clause 48 is specifically concerned with the borrowing powers which will be involved and therefore a great deal of the debate will have to take place on the necessity to increase borrowing powers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The necessity for borrowing for the purposes of Clause 48, but not for a general debate on the borrowing powers of the nationalised industries.

Mr. Manuel: I shall try to keep in order.
The hon. Member for Tavistock said that the railways would have too much liberty and I have attempted to answer what he said about the writing down of capital. He and his colleagues have had the opportunity for five months in Standing Committee to scrutinise the activities of the railways. But we could not get to grips with any of the facets of the private enterprise undertakings, no matter what their machinations, which are in competition with the railways. By restoring Clause 48, which was deleted by


another place, we are giving hon. Members the utmost liberty to examine everything and hon. Members opposite must accept that that is a great freedom which is not available to many of us who would like to examine many aspects of many share capital allocations in private enterprise and many great aggregations of capital in various spheres which in the national interest might be better directed into other activities. No regard is ever paid to that.
The hon. Member for Tavistock knows a great deal about transport, as he proved in Committee. He is well-equipped to serve the House well, but I hope that he will not weaken the position of the railways by making the sort of speech which he has made today, a speech which was entirely destructive and not for the good of the future of transport.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: We should not be coy about this matter. This is an idealogical debate. It is not Clause 48 which the Lords omitted from the Bill; it is Clause Four of the constitution of the Labour Party. As it stands, Clause 48 gives the Government power to enter into business with all the force of the financial backing which only Governments have. This can be thought by some, who cannot be criticised for thinking it, to be the backdoor to nationalisation. It must be remembered that the Minister who first put Clause 48 into the Bill boasted from the first that, if the Labour Party could not get Clause Four on the Statute Book in the old-fashioned way, it would do so in the new, modern devious way, and that is what Clause 48 is.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. Did Mr. Deputy Speaker agree that Clause 48 was the same as Clause Four of the Labour Party constitution? If it was the same surely the hon. Member for Peterborough is out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All I can agree is that what the hon. Member has said so far is in order.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I want the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to understand what I am saying. It may be Clause 48 in the Bill, but it is implementing Clause Four of the constitution of the Labour Party and I object to it very strongly.

Mr. George H. Perry: Does the hon. Gentleman mean old Clause Four?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It goes a long way towards implementing Clause Four—the industrial and retailing side of the business of this country. It gives the Government a free hand, a blank cheque, to go into any sort of business to any sort of extent. The only restriction is that it has to have some connection with the railway industry as it now exists. Almost everything that is manufactured or sold in some way or another goes through the railway organisation to a lesser or greater extent.
The Minister, in suggesting how they had tied their hands so that they could not turn it into Clause Four, said that all these matters could not automatically occur through civil servants or officers operating a nationalised board; they had to be approved by the Minister. If we have another Labour Government he will be only too delighted to approve this piece of nationalisation. So there is no protection for the mass of people outside who, at election after election, have shown that they want nothing to do with nationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman's defence, that it has to go through all these restrictions, is no defence against the ideological content of the Clause.
If there is no great urgency about the spheres in which perhaps the work carried out by this nationalised industry ought to be extended, why not bring the various items before Parliament? Why not bring them before Parliament every year, in much the same way as a company works? A company gets out a general policy plan and lets it be known to the people who have to work out the blueprints to put it into operation. If the Government of the day—and they are elected to do this—are prepared to work out a policy each year saying, "Here are the reasons why we believe that the railway workshops ought to be allowed to manufacture this, that, or the other", or, "Here are the reasons why we believe they should be in a position to purchase petrol stations and to retail petrol", and justifies those separate Bills through the normal stages of Parliament, we could not really object.
To ask Parliament to give them a blank cheque to go into any sort of business, because that is what it amounts to, using the collateral of Government security to get the money, and where it is clear that they will be in keen competition with people already in those businesses who are supplying the taxes to give the collateral to the Government to offer, is being very unfair.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is the hon. Member telling us that directors and management of companies bring to shareholders meetings details of day to day management and ask for their shareholders permission?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: No, but they have to justify what they are doing at annual meetings where the shareholders have a chance to discuss matters.

Mr. Gower: They have to deal with bank managers and directors.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was coming to that. The safeguard to private business is the viability and good sense of the project if they have to get money from the bank or from the public. But where there is the backing of Government security supporting what is an ideological venture those safeguards do not have to be overcome. Not only on those ideological grounds is this bad, but in their eagerness to give themselves this blank cheque they are trying to impose a nonsense on this House.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) recognised it. In a very polite way, because he did not wish to appear to be criticising his right hon. Friend, he said to the Minister, "Is it a fact that you, or anybody sitting in your place, will not be in a position to give the detailed control that the Minister said would be given?" The hon. Gentleman was virtually saying, "You keep in your hands as Minister merely the big decisions. You let all those other little ones and medium-sized ones go through the ordinary run of the officers controlling it."
The hon. Gentleman was asking in advance for the restrictions that the Minister was boasting about to be removed. Anyone who has sat in a Ministry for two minutes—I sat in a couple of Ministries for five years and we had to deal with

this sort of detail—knows that about 98 per cent. of the problems which are supposed to be settled by the Minister never come within his vision because of their sheer size and number.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Marsh: For someone who has had a career as a Minister I find it difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's incredible description of Ministerial control over capital investment. Of course, Ministers do not decide whether somebody should put a new washbasin round the corner or set up a small garage. Neither does the chairman of any commercial company. If the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has not had the experience—although I am sure that he must have had the experience during that period—let him ask the chairman of any nationalised industry whether he can give a few examples of Ministers who have turned down specific projects. This happens the whole time. They have to file a detailed capital investment programme. Discussions take months, with accountants and economists being involved. Ministerial decisions approving or disapproving certain investments are taken daily.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: All I am asking is that the separate projects should be brought before Parliament so that they can be justified here instead of having this blank cheque so that they can be put on the conveyor belt and worked into a system which is unfair to private enterprise.
The top and bottom of the matter is that we do not trust the Government—they are cheating us a little—and we do not accept the Minister's technical explanation about the safeguard that things would not, should not, and could not happen. We know that the idea of Clause 48 being in the Bill is to move one step further down the road, which we think would be disastrous. It has been proved in practice in the past to be disastrous, and I am certain, under the ramshackle set-up in Clause 48 now, it will be a disaster in future. It is an ideological difference—the other place recognised it as such—and we are resisting it on those grounds. We do not believe that it is good for the nation that a blank cheque of this kind should be given to satisfy the doctrinaire views of the people who sit on the Government back benches.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has a very benign countenance, a manly bearing and a very happy-go-lucky manner. But, for all those splendid attributes, I do not trust him, either. I do not trust his ideas. I do not trust: what he intends for the country and its industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel too sad about my opinions on his outlook.
We have, once again, been treated to a tremendous spate of oratory from the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). Having served with him on Standing Committee for five months, we can tell him that we are becoming immune to the over-dramatised statements which he makes.
The hon. Member did not fail us today. He made some outlandish statements, such as he has been making for some time. For example, he said that the nationalised industries do not borrow their money, they print it. At first, I thought that he said they pinch it. Had he done so it would have been just as wide of the mark. Such rhetoric adds up to a wildly irresponsible speech.
The hon. Member complained that the debts have been written off. I am very pleased that that is so. The time was opportune to write them off. They were incurred because of the ineptitude of past Conservative Governments and because of the unfortunate way in which the industry has been run for many years. It was timely to write them off in this way. If ever an industry deserves a fresh start it is the transport industry. It is necessary to give it a fresh start because so much depends upon it.
The hon. Member said that my hon. Friends and I have a doctrinaire outlook. Even by the wildest stretch of imagination, the hon. Member will not expect us to apologise for having that outlook. There is a lot behind our doctrinal outlook. For example, there is the question of the dignity of the people working in the industry. From time immemorial, for many thousands of people working in the transport industry there has been very little dignity and very little recognition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to relate his remarks to Clause 48.

Mr. Mahon: To my way of thinking it boils down to the question: where does the money come from? We must be concerned about that. It is a very important question to ask. The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) asked that question. He made the bold assertion that the Government print the money. That is the same record being played all along the line. That is over-simplifying the situation and denigrating the financial system upon which our arrangements in this country are made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will recall that I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) on this very point and that Mr. Speaker earlier intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), asking him to relate his remarks to the Clause. I must ask the hon. Member to do the same. The Clause is concerned with manufacture, repair and supply. Much as it concerns the nationalised industries, the debate must be related to the Clause.

Mr. Mahon: I will do my best to conform to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it has the unfortunate effect of narrowing the debate to the finest possible limits. Most hon. Members in the debate have been in the same unfortunate position as that in which I find myself. But I will try to conform to your Ruling, although it means cutting out the best part of my speech. During my 35 years in local government I never found myself as restricted as I have found myself in this place. That is one of the unfortunate aspects of being a Member of Parliament which I have not enjoyed. I have never circumvented the difficulties.

Mr. Marsh: I assure my hon. Friend that although he may have felt himself circumscribed by this difficulty, none of us on either side of the House has ever noticed it.

Mr. Mahon: I thank my right hon. Friend.
Several hon. Members have asked whether the industry has been run efficiently. There are definite and salutary checks and limitations on capital expenditure in running a nationalised industry. We have had the salutary confrontation of devaluation in


recent months and there are such people as the International Monetary Fund and such things as adverse trade balances. To say that we have a cavalier approach to capital expenditure and that we do not care as long as we get through our ideological outlook beggars description and is most unworthy of hon. Members opposite. We know that they are trying to put up a good front and to suggest to the country that the Bill will be inimical to the best interests of the people. They are making a splendid effort to do that, but they will fail. After the many months during which we have been debating the issue the people are beginning to realise that the industry cries out to be reorganised to bring about the smooth running and improvement of the transport arrangements of the country.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I will not follow the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) at any great length except to say that any eloquence of argument which my hon. Friends or I could deploy against the Bill will achieve nothing compared with the transition of the Bill into an Act of Parliament. When the country is faced with the fact of this legislation, and all that flows from it, there will be a great deal more hostility than hon. Members opposite appear to expect and far more than such mild-mannered men as ourselves could possibly hope to generate.
The Minister once again deployed his almost unequalled skill at bending words. At one time, with a charm which none could emulate, he declared himself as being non-controversial in supporting this unpleasant Clause. Almost in the next sentence he referred to the pig-headedness of my hon. Friends' opposition to the Clause which seemed to introduce a slight element of controversiality whatever the Minister may think.
The right hon. Gentleman used a favourite argument, which he deploys on every subject—that there is no need for our anxiety about the Clause because of the very extensive safeguards written into the Bill, and, in particular, the extensive powers in the Minister's hands. We have to reflect that, though not the parent of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is at least one of its sponsors. He speaks of

its terms with enthusiasm. We therefore can be forgiven for taking no comfort whatever from the fact that the Minister has extensive powers. Extensive powers in the hands of Ministers is a situation at which some of us look with a good deal of suspicion. I have no doubt that the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friends about the way in which the Minister will use his powers are very well founded.
The Minister said that he was asking for no special privileges for the public sector. I find that astonishing. If he listens to and understands the argument, I do not see how the Minister can continue to make that claim. Our objection has been made clear in respect of every nationalised industry. We object to the privileged access by these industries to public money and we regard a constant reiteration of Ministerial safeguards as being mere eyewash. The Minister intervened in a speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Harmar Nicholls) to justify it all by saying that on occasions Ministers have turned down projects put forward by nationalised industries. Of course they have, but I have a horrible feeling that they have probably turned down good projects and approved crazy projects.
The Minister should not expect us to be in any way convinced by these arguments, which he put forward so innocently. The powers conferred by the Clause are to our minds very objectionably wide. To confer upon an organisation powers to manufacture and repair anything which the organisation considers can advantageously be so manufactured—not "profitably", but "advantageously"—in the opinion of the authority itself is to confer very wide powers indeed. How could we be expected to credit Ministers who are the authors of such provisions with a desire to limit severely the way in which they are put into action?
I am the first to admit that if nationalised industries generated large and extensive profits, any arguments which we could deploy would be very limited in their effect. One or two hon. Members opposite have trotted out the old liturgical argument that Tory Members of Parliament usually speak to do the bidding of their friends in private enterprise who wish to make profits by these activities. Nobody has approached


me on the subject, and the apprehensions which I am expressing are being expressed on behalf of myself and my constituents, who fear that the taxpayer's money will be wasted.
We have been looking at the results of nationalised industries. If the Minister could turn up the record and show a constant profitability, the argument from this side of the House opposing such a Clause as this might be a good deal weaker. But he cannot do so. The Minister seems to think that a suitable monument to failure is to extend the areas of the organisation. I am becoming tired of the argument being trotted out so often by his hon. Friends that we all agreed to set up these large organisations and now we have to give them something to do. That is not an acceptable argument, and the Labour Party ought not to expect it to go down very well.
I am sure that the House is right to look with a great deal of apprehension at the powers conferred by the Clause on the Minister and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West was right to remind the House, in particular, of the large borrowing which will be required in order to finance these powers. I am certain that if I were a member of another place, nothing would annoy me more than to find myself deluged with advice from the House of Commons, which itself is not very good at accepting advice.
I hope that the House of Lords, having deleted this obnoxious Clause, will stick to its guns and insist on its deletion. I do not believe that anything said by the Minister could justify what he has in mind to an audience of anything but bigoted supporters. To a lifelong Socialist, this part of the Bill may look like the entry into the Promised Land. But if the charms of Socialism have begun to wear a bit thin, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will look somewhat more realistically at what is promised, whereupon they will discover that they can vote only one way, and that is for the enthusiastic rejection of what is, at best, optimistic nonsense.

Mr. George H. Perry: I am always bemused when I hear hon. Gentlemen opposite refer in sneering terms to railway finances and deficits. When I was a

railway employee in 1947, the year before nationalisation, the railways lost £67 million. Throughout the last war the railways received £40 million every year to enable them to keep going. Over the 10 years between 1929 and 1939 the railways were allowed by successive Governments to carry annual deficits. Today, nothing is new except the amounts involved, and they are greater only by virtue of the change in the value of money. Thus, the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite dies flat, and that nails the lie which they seek to spread.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) argued that Clause 48 was like Clause Four. As a Socialist, I wish it were. After all, there are 26 million people fully employed in Britain and all paying their National Insurance contributions. The railway workshops employ fewer than 60,000 people. Their numbers were reduced by 50,000 in the last 15 years.
With my railway background, I can speak with more experience of this industry than probably any other hon. Member. From midnight on 31st March, 1966 I ceased to be a railway workshop employee. I had been employed in that capacity for 20 years and I had been a member of the negotiating machinery of what was then British Railways for 13 years. I remember how, in 1965, as secretary of the trades council, I wrote on behalf of 36,000 people in Derby asking the then Minister of Transport, Tom Fraser, to introduce a Measure of the kind we are now discussing and so allow the railway workshops to go into the export business and compete freely with private enterprise.
Let us be clear about the provision under discussion. It was mentioned in the Labour Party's election manifesto, "Time For Decision". Those who voted for us knew that it was our intention to take this step. Whatever may be said about the Labour Party not keeping its promises, we are keeping our promise this time [An HON. MEMBER: "For a change."] The hon. Member cannot deny that our promise is being kept. We said that we would introduce a Measure to allow the railway workshops to compete in the private sphere.
One would think from the way in which the hon. Member for Peterborough speaks that it is unprecedented for the


nationalised industries to wish to compete with private industry. What are the civil airlines doing? What about the electricity, gas and coal industries? They are selling solid fuel and other heating equipment in competition with private enterprise.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite are certain that private enterprise is so superior to the nationalised industries, of what are they afraid? Do they fear the competition which is about to start? I wish to shout on behalf of my former colleagues in the railway workshops because I know that they can compete. That frightens hon. Gentlemen opposite. They know that the railway workshops can build rolling stock and other equipment that will sell in free competition.

Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the difference between a private concern and a nationalised industry? If a manufacturer sets up business in an area—even in a development area—and goes bankrupt, nobody will help him. If a worskhop of British Railways gets into financial difficulty, the whole system will hold it up.

Mr. Perry: The hon. Gentleman will find, on examination, that that is not the whole story. If a railway workshop is taken away from a workshop town, that town soon becomes a ghost town. I can think of Doncaster, Crewe, Swindon and Eastleigh. Derby is a different kettle of fish. I come from Derby and am aware of the position there. The main workshop towns welcome the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not find many people, even Tory supporters, in those towns being prepared to argue against the Bill. They appreciate that it will ensure their future. Local chambers of commerce and trade will benefit as a result of the Bill.
Shortly before the Summer Recess, Mr. Johnson, the Chairman of the Railways Board, explained that the activities that will be permitted by the Clause will represent only a small percentage of total requirements. This means that British Railways will be able to sell their unused capacity. This is the ogre which frightens hon. Gentlemen opposite, although it is only a small one. But big things sometimes grow from little ones.
If this industry can be efficient and work on behalf of the nation, particularly

in the export trade, it should be given a chance to do so. It may fail, but at least we will have given it a chance to succeed. Private enterprise sometimes fails. On behalf of the 55,000 to 60,000 people employed in the railway workshops, I welcome this provision and hope that they will do their best to compete in export and other markets and so help our balance of payments.

Mr. Bessell: Hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee listened on many occasions to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). Today, he spoke particularly forcefully and effectively, and the case he presented illustrated the point made by the Minister, who said that we were confronted by a matter on which there was a fundamental difference of principle between the two sides of the House. The Minister was right. There is no doubt that this is something that cannot be reconciled. I do not propose to try to persuade hon. Gentlemen opposite that our view is right, any more than they could hope to persuade me that they are right.
There is, however, one issue on which there is unanimity. My opposition to Clause 48—or Clause 45 as it was when we discussed the provision in Committee and on Report—is in no way aimed at the railway workshops. I have always taken the view—I have said this on many occasions, and I repeat it lest there be any doubt—that it is right that any excess capacity in the workshops should be used to provide other means of employment for those engaged in the railway industry. I see no harm in the limited diversification of capacity within the workshops.
That is not the basis of my opposition to the Clause. The worst aspect of this provision appears in subsection (6,b), which gives the Waterways Board
… power to sell goods of any description to outside persons, whether or not persons using their waterways, at any place where persons … may require facilities for the purchase of those goods, and for that purpose to purchase any such goods.
This means, in effect, that the Waterways Board can, if it so chooses, decide that someone using waterways and living in, say, Birmingham and who needs to buy fishing tackle and anything connected, or even unconnected, with the waterways may be provided with those goods; and there is nothing to prevent the Board


from establishing a retail outlet for this purpose.
5.15 p.m.
However much one stretches a piece of legislation which deals with the nation's transport system, I do not believe that one can allow that it is possible to encompass, within the framework of transport, this sort of retail activity. This has always been my greatest objection to the Clause.
We have discussed today the question of commercial viability. The Minister emphasised that none of these activities could be undertaken unless they were commercially viable. This is far too loose a term. There is nothing in the Clause, or any of its dependent Clauses, which says that a profit must be made. Nobody would invest money in the private sector unless there was a return in terms of profitability. To be "commercially viable" does not necessarily mean that a profit must be made.
It is possible, for example, for an investment to be made, for the capital to be serviced and for all the responsibilities of the company or individual to be discharged by reaching only a breakeven position. It might be argued that a break-even position is commercially viable, but in the private sector a profit must be made. Thus, these boards and industries will be given an unfair means of competition.

Mr. George H. Perry: Surely these nationalised undertakings should be allowed to receive a working balance to enable them to indulge in necessary capital expenditure without having to borrow?

Mr. Bessell: I accept that, and if that were written into the Bill—if it were clearly stated that it was necessary for a profit to be made—my fears would be allayed. But that is not the position and nothing of the sort is said either in Clause 48 or in its dependent Clauses. That is the basic difference between the two sides of the House. We fear the unfairness of the competition that could be created.
It has been argued that there should be diversification, and I do not necessarily disagree with that. There could be circumstances in which it would be wise for an industry to diversify. Hearst News-

papers of America provides a good example of diversification. That company has diversified into real estate, magazines, paper and pulp and other activities directly concerned with the newspaper industry. That is wise diversification.
In this case it will be possible for all types of diversification to occur. This must be wrong, if it is completely outside the scope of the transport undertaking, and I submit that to envisage such a step is outside the scope of this type of Measure.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that, in Committee, I was told that the Railways Board could run a boot and shoe shop in the middle of Birmingham?

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that debate. It was decided on that occasion that it would be possible for the Waterways Board to sell virtually anything, from fish to elephants. This emphasises the need for proper diversification.
I am not concerned with the issue of the railway workshops. If it were possible for the Clause to provide for their spare capacity to be used in the way that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have advocated, I would be glad to support them. I do not in any way question the honesty of the statements which the Minister has made to us. I do not in any way doubt his interpretation. I am sure that if it were left to him the right hon. Gentleman would see to it that no wide diversification took place; that there was no great speculation of public funds. I am quite certain that he would ensure that transport undertakings dealt with transport and not with all the various activities which it would be possible for them to enter, as described by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson). I am sure of that, but the fact is that profitability is here and the legislation is permissive. That is where the danger lies.
That is why I say in all seriousness, and not emotionally, that I regard the Clause, as I have always regarded it, as wicked and dangerous, and capable of creating a whole new field of nationalisation wider than anything that has been considered or contemplated since Clause Four of the Labour Party constitution was written. For that reason I support their Lordships' Amendment, and I hope


that, once again, we will still have the chance of seeing the Minister changing his mind; that he will at least write in the modifications that are essential if this is to be a safe Clause and not one to interfere with a whole range of things which have no connection whatever with transport.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I am much happier with this debate. Yesterday, hon. Members opposite accused the Government of lopping off powers from the very large public authorities and boards. Today, they accuse the Government of trying in sinister fashion to extend the powers of public boards. I am grateful to them for doing so, because it brings us back to the natural order of things.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) put his finger on a salient point when he said, looking at the Government Front Bench, "The trouble is that we do not trust you". That illustrated the views of hon. Members opposite, but the hon. Gentleman missed the point that my hon. and right hon. Friends will not be sitting on these authorities. The authorities will not consist of diehard Marxists: not that I suggest that my right hon. Friend is a diehard Marxist—far from it. The members of the authorities will be recruited from various people, and as long as we have so many local authorities temporarily controlled by Conservatives we may have some anti-Marxists.
There is nothing in the administration of the boards so far to show that the managers, especially of British Railways, are motivated by Marxist ideas. For instance, the railways have recently decided that the maintenance of diesel electric locomotives shall be done by the manufacturers of those locomotives. I, in my non-doctrinaire way, support this, particularly since they are repaired in my constituency or that of my colleague for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). We do not have to look further to see that these boards are not motivated in that way, and it is they who will be responsible for the decisions. As a matter of fact, some of my back bench colleagues have to watch, notably, the Steel Board, to stop it lopping off powers in that way. I can assure hon. Members opposite that there is no need for them to worry on that score.
I suspect that their real worry is lest any nationalised industries make profits because that would rob them of one of the biggest planks in their electoral platform. Secondly, they do not want the nationalised industries to make profits because they want all those profits for private enterprise.
They talk about equality of commercial opportunity, but if we tie the hands of public authorities in the way suggested we may subject them to most unfair competiton. As is known, the nationalised boards always buy British, but if they are put into the hands of British manufacturers and forbidden to buy goods from abroad there will be insufficient private enterprise competition. The only way for them to protect themselves is the threat of going into manufacture themselves. I rather suspect that hon. Members opposite are speaking tongue in cheek, and that what they are really afraid of is that profits that might go to private industry will go to help the public purse.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) has just advanced the most remarkable theory. He said that as a lot of people on the boards would not be Marxists it would be good policy to give them Marxist powers so that they would not operate them.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who has just left the Chamber, dealt with one aspect of this matter, but dealt only briefly with the railway workshops. We on this side are not opposed to reasonable operation of railway workshops, but under this Clause factories could spring up quite unlike the railway workshops. Without any exaggeration at all, I think that this is an appalling Clause because it gives such tremendous scope for new activities which were never contemplated when the railways were first taken into State ownership.
By this Clause, electric light fittings and all such things could be manufactured. Carpets, mats, towels, soaps, cushions, seats, chairs and furniture could all be manufactured, purchased or sold, as could cutlery, glass and windows, stationery and paper—one could continue with the list for a very long time. It is quite absurd. It is inconceivable that the Minister and his colleagues


should try to disguise this as a modest extension designed to enable them to keep the railway workshops working a little nearer to capacity.
I should like to emphasise, as has been suggested before, that this is not a question of competition betwen equals. These are not equal bodies. On the one hand, we have the State bodies, with preferential access to State money and, on the other, companies and firms of all sizes and conditions which are subject to the fairly harsh discipline of having to go to the joint stock banks for advances and to the market for capital. There is a complete difference.
There is also seen the possibility of firms starting up in difficult areas, even development areas and then suffering unfair competition as a result of this Clause and getting into financial difficulty. I have often heard hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland, the North of England and other parts, pleading with the Board of Trade to bring firms to their areas—even United Slates firms. I can well imagine that if United States firms come to Scotland or to the North of England they do not expect unfair competition from a nationalised industry and will be much more likely to develop in countries where they would not suffer such unfair competition from the local industries there. There are all sorts of possible dangers. How do the Minister's colleagues at the Board of Trade say to an American company, "You come to this part, but we cannot guarantee that British Railways will not start up your kind of industry just a few miles away"?

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of American oil companies are in direct contractual partnership with nationalised bodies such as the National Coal Board and the Gas Council.

Mr. Gower: Yes, but how can the President of the Board of Trade persuade any American company if he is unable to give an assurance that under the Clause a rival activity of British Railways will not be set up to run on unfairly advantageous terms? These are some of the reasons why I regard this as an awful Clause. We should agree with their Lordships and delete it from the Bill.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: This is the first opportunity which hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee have had to consider this Clause, because of the operation of the Guillotine on Report. We should be grateful to their Lordships for providing us with this opportunity.
I entirely endorse everything that my right hon. and hon. Friends have said against the Clause in principle and in all its scope. I shall devote a few remarks to an aspect of its consequences to which, so far as I am aware, attention has not been drawn either in Committee or in another place. This consequence, unlike the other consequences to which attention has been drawn, is not merely a hypothetical consequence but is an admitted one. It is a consequence which differs in kind from all the other possible consequences of the Clause.
It is my understanding that under subsection (2,c) repair shops set up by nationalised industries for vehicle repair would be entitled to apply for and receive authorisation to carry out Ministry of Transport vehicle testing. This is not merely my assumption. Earlier this year I received an assurance from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the Minister had no plans to combine vehicle testing to stations set up under the terms of the Clause. That is an assurance that at least the Minister has no intention, at the moment at any rate, to give a monopoly of vehicle testing to garages which might be set up under the terms of the Clause.
There is a difference in kind between the consequence of allowing nationalised industries to indulge in vehicle testing from the other consequences that might flow from the passage of the Clause. The difference is that, if the railways or the other new boards go into the business of supplying petrol or undertaking vehicle repairs with the backing of the taxpayer and the printing press, at least they are not empowered to order free enterprise competition out of business. In the case of vehicle testing stations, the Clause would make the Ministry, in effect, judge and jury. It is the Ministry which decides where the authorisations may go. The Clause would empower the nationalised industries, if the Minister felt so inclined, to benefit from differential and preferential treatment in the business of the award of vehicle testing authorisations.
Unfortunately, from evidence which has been brought to my attention, I am by no means certain that this is a purely academic proposition. Evidence has been brought to my attention to suggest that the Ministry is actively engaged at present in ruthlessly using its powers to drive out smaller private enterprise vehicle testing stations from the right to receive authorisation. I should be out of order if I were to go into this now. I intend to raise on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment the case which has been brought to my attention.
The constituent who has drawn this outrageous behaviour of the Ministry to my attention told me that there is a strong feeling in the motor industry, certainly in Scotland, that the Ministry is engaged in trying to squeeze out the smaller vehicle testing stations as a first step in a strategy and that the second and third steps will be that, once vehicle testing has been confined in the private sector to the larger garages, where it is probably of considerably less commercial interest than it is in smaller garages, they will be encouraged to move out and leave it to the nationalised industries which are empowered to conduct testing under the terms of the Clause.
I hope and pray that these fears are unfounded, but the passage of this legislation in this form is bound to give rise to such fears. Lord Shepherd, speaking on this Clause in another place, said this:
I do not deny that certain provisions in this Bill may have an effect on some small private organisations. But in terms of the national wellbeing and the national development this happens from time to time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st July, 1968: Vol. 294, c. 143.]
I cannot see how the national well-being or the national development can be furthered by the transference of services rendered to motorists from garages which must perform them profitably or not at all to garages which are entitled to draw upon the taxpayer or the printing press. Above all, I cannot see how the national interest can be served by enabling the Ministry to grant the railways a new monopoly of a service, namely, vehicle testing, in which they are not at present engaged. This is in a different class from the other objections that can be raised to the Clause, all totally valid and all adding up to an insurmountable case

for accepting their Lordships' advice and removing the Clause from the Bill.

Mr. Marsh: I have heard the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) make many speeches, all of which have been interesting. I have never heard him use a debate of this type to discuss a subject on which he could quite easily have written a letter and received an answer.
This has been a long debate—understandably so, because, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) said, it involves a classic difference between the two sides. The hon. Gentleman got himself involved in a doctrinaire struggle which the Labour Party got out of 10 years ago. He saw this as a plot to nationalise the whole of British industry. We heard again today, as we heard in Committee, the stories of what will happen when British Railways are running cutlery factories, shoe shops, and so on. Hon. Gentlemen are being rather less than serious. Why should the railways wish to run cutlery shops or factories, or boot repair shops? The railways do not run anything of this sort now and there is no reason why they should in the future. I cannot conceive that a Minister of Transport of any party would allow the railways to do so in the future, even if they wanted to.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), in his characteristically gusty fashion, said that if only nationalised industries were making profits he would not mind: it was the fact that the taxpayers' money was going down the drain that worried him. It will be interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman perform a feat of verbal gymnastics when we reach the hotel Clause, because the hotel section of British Railways is making a profit. However, the hon. Gentleman's views on that will probably be the same as they are on this, that he objects to the nationalised industries having the freedom to operate commercially.
We hear a lot about the ease with which nationalised industries can obtain money from the Treasury. I cannot help saying, in passing, that Mr. Scanlon might well have found the Chancellor more forthcoming than the Midland Bank. On the whole, there is a great deal of evidence that nationalised industries complain bitterly about the degree of control


imposed upon them and about the difficulties they have in obtaining their capital.
The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) made the point that all this hangs on the legal obligation on the industry to pay, and said that it was nonsense. He began with the rather simpliste argument that all nationalised industries fail, which is not true, as he knows very well. But it is not true that the Clause which we are discussing has nothing of value in it. While merely to say that the nationalised industries have an obligation to pay their way does nothing of itself and certainly does not make them profitable. If the obligation to pay their way under the Bill was all that was involved here, it would have no meaning. Hon. Members opposite would be justified in saying that it meant nothing, because they themselves, on a number of occasions wrote exactly the same proviso into Bills of their own, and it meant nothing.
The reason that the mere obligation to pay meant nothing was that right hon. and hon. Members opposite did not take the other decisions to enable nationalised industries to pay. This is why we do not just put in an obligation on these industries to pay their way and to act in a commercial manner. We go further and make real provision for a proper financial structure, and so forth to enable a nationalised industry, particularly the railways, to start off sensibly. We make provision in the Clause to enable these industries to use their assets to the full. In this and other Clauses we make provision for the industries to engage in certain activities from which they can show a profit.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) sees the spectre of an enormous impact upon our foreign competitors when they come to this country and find themselves deterred by the presence of nationalised industry here. I think that some of the countries which he mentioned have a level of governmental intervention in their industrial and commercial policy which even this Government would not impose on British industry.
But, apart from that, the truth is that there is evidence of foreign companies which want to be associated with British nationalised industries, Continental coal companies in direct contractual partner-

ship with the National Coal Board, Continental oil companies in association with the Gas Council, drilling in the North Sea, and so on. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is Hobson's choice."] No, it is not; they chose their partners themselves.

Mr. Gower: That is completely different. I was pointing out that an American or Italian company coming here and wishing to set up in a development area or any other part of the country would be somewhat surprised if it then had to face unfair competition from British Rail in the same industry.

Mr. Marsh: That would be true if they did, in fact, face unfair competition, but the whole purpose of the Clause and the accompanying provisions is that it shall not be unfair. There would be no sense in it otherwise. I see no merit in a nationalised industry just running wild about the country and setting up cutlery shops, furniture shops and the rest. If it can make money out of it, that is good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. We hear a lot about the financial obligations of the nationalised industries. The last contentious debate in which I was involved in the House was about the Bristol West Dock, when there was an argument about whether there should be a capital investment of £15 million. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that it was a disgraceful decision. What right, they asked, had any Minister to prohibit capital investment on the basis of D.C.F. returns? The same argument can come up each way on different questions.
When one comes down to the point of this whole argument, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is right. The argument of the Opposition, shorn of the "phoney" talk of nationalised industries doing things which nobody in their right mind could conceive of their doing, shorn of all that "flannel", is a doctrinal objection to the public sector being able to compete on equal terms with the private sector. This is where the difference lies between us. We are now giving hon. Members opposite an opportunity to stand by their oft repeated pledge that they believe in competition.
If the Opposition do believe in competition, fair competition, if they believe in nationalised industries being treated as


commercial concerns—and it is not the function of a nationalised industry to provide social amenities; it is the job of the Government to inject what is desirable in social policy—then they should see that a nationalised industry should be allowed properly to run itself and to produce a profit. If we believe that that is how the industries should operate, and if we provide for the necessary safeguards, as we have, there is no reason why hon. and right hon. Members opposite should persist in the stand which they have taken so far.
If there is to be a Division on this matter, I hope that hon. Members opposite will recognise that what they are doing in going to the Lobby against the Government is trying to ensure—only trying, because they will not be allowed to do it—that the nationalised industries are not allowed to use expensive assets and vast public investment in the same way as a private company can use its assets.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Minister has shown his usual enthusiasm for the principle of public ownership. Some of us remember that he made his political reputation in the House by a very fine speech from the back benches defending nationalisation when the present Government were in opposition. Much to their shock at that time, his right hon. and hon. Friends actually found one of their back-bench colleagues willing to defend nationalisation with some enthusiasm. Since then, the Prime Minister has given the right hon. Gentleman every opportunity to fulfil his desires. He has been responsible for extending nationalisation to steel, and now he is carrying through the very considerable provisions for public ownership in the present Bill.
There is a dilemma here. I fully understand the point made, for example, by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. George H. Perry), who worked for some time in railway workshops. There must be occasions when nationalised industries would like to use their assets for other purposes, to diversify into other activities from which, under the present arrangements, they are restricted. But this is the dilemma in having nationalised industries.
If we are to have a mixed economy and in that economy nationalised industries are to be financed on terms far better than can be obtained for the private sector, and if we are to allow nationalised industries to write off capital to the enormous extent which they have, we cannot then run the economy in such a way as to allow the public sector and the private sector to go into free and unrestricted competition. This is the dilemma and the problem.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) said that he was delighted because under the Bill £1,200 million of capital had been written off—great celebrations; very good, he said—and he was delighted that it had been done at last. That is a reasonable position for him to take, and it is one which has been taken in one nationalised industry after another. But one cannot take the same attitude towards capital in the private sector. This is the great dilemma. Enormous borrowing powers are provided for in the Bill, and some of those borrowing powers will be used to enable some of the existing nationalised industries either to extend their activities in their own spheres or to go into new spheres altogether. I do not believe that at this time, in the present state of our economy, it is right that public money should be used for that purpose. This is another reason why we oppose the Clause.
There are three fundamental points of difference between the two sides of the House. On the question of management, we are against the Government's proposal because, basically, all the nationalised industries concerned have great management problems in their own sphere. It is much more important that British Railways get on with the job of managing the railways properly instead of looking to other diverse activities in which they have no skills.
On the question of finance, the strong points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) show how enormous is the public debt, how it steadily grows, and how the Clause will add to that problem.
Finally, on the question of a mixed economy, we believe that public ownership has already gone too far. There has been a considerable extension of public


ownership under this Government. By the time this Bill becomes an Act, the Government will have nationalised steel and large sections of the bus industry. They intend, they say, to go on to nationalise the ports and docks. We are reaching a situation in which private enterprise is so dependent for the ultimate price of its goods upon the products and prices of the monopoly public sector that it does not have the freedom to compete abroad which we should like it to have.

I therefore conclude with this warning to the chairmen of the nationalised industries: if they have used the Clause to diversify their activities, we shall examine those activities when we come back to power and return them to the private sector at the earliest opportunity.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 210.

Division No. 297.]
AYES
[5.50 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Dunn, James A.
Kenyon, Clifford


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Alldritt, Walter
Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Anderson, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Archer, Peter
Ellis, John
Lawson, George


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Ashley, Jack
Ensor, David
Ledger, Ron


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan


Barnes, Michael
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Barnett, Joel
Finch, Harold
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Baxter William
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Beaney, Alan
Foley, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus


Bence, Cyril
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lomas, Kenneth


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blackburn, F.
Freeson, Reginald
McCann, John


Booth, Albert
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James


Boston, Terence
Gardner, Tony
Macdonald, A. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael


Boyden, James
Ginsburg, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. c.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bradley, Tom
Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackintosh, John P.


Brooks, Edwin
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Maclennan, Robert


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gregory, Arnold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harper, Joseph
Manuel, Archie


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mapp, Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Marquand, David


Coo, Denis
Hilton, W. S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Coleman, Donald
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Christopher


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, J. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Millan, Bruce


Crawshaw, Richard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Cronin, John
Howie, W.
Moonman, Eric


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hoy, James
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cullen Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moyle, Roland


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, Adam
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hynd, John
Neal, Harold


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Newens, Stan


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ogden, Eric


de Freitas, Fit. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Delargy, Hugh
Jeger, George (Goole)
Orbach, Maurice


Dell, Edmund
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Stanley


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dewar Donald
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, Walter


Dickens, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Paget, R. T.


Dobson, Ray
Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles




Park, Trevor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Weitzman, David


Pavitt, Laurence
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Pentland, Norman
Silverman, Julius
White, Mrs. Eirene


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Slater, Joseph
Wilkins, w. A.


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Small, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Price, William (Rugby)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Probert, Arthur
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rees, Merlyn
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Swingler, Stephen
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Symonds, J. B.
Winnick, David


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Taverne, Dick
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Woof, Robert


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E)
Thornton, Ernest
Wyatt, Woodrow


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James
Yates, Victor


Roebuck, Roy
Tomney, Frank



Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Neil McBride and


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Ryan, John
Wallace, George





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fisher, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Astor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Awdry, Daniel
Foster, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Loveys, W. H.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lubbock, Eric


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
MacArthur, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Sir Richard
McMaster, Stanley


Bell, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bessell, Peter
Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mawby, Ray


Black, Sir Cyril
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Blaker, Peter
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman


Braine, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. SirWalter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bryan, Paul
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hay, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Burden, F. A.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nott, John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, J. E. B.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Henry
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, John


Cordle, John
Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Corfield, F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Francis


Currie, G. B. H.
Jopling, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dance, James
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Doughty, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Viscount
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lane, David
Rodgors, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Errington, Sir Eric
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)







Royle, Anthony
Temple, John M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Scott, Nicholas
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Sharpies, Richard
Tilney, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Turton, Rt. Hn, R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Silvester, Frederick
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winstanley, Or. M. P.


Sinclair, Sir George
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Waddington, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wright, Esmond


Speed, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wylie, N. R.


Stainton, Keith
Wall, Patrick
Younger, Hn. George


Summers, Sir Spencer
Walters, Dennis



Tapsell, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Jasper More and


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Webster, David
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Teeling, Sir William

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the first Government Amendment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): We now come to Amendment No. 57, with which it may be convenient to the House to take Amendment No. 58—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now dealing with the Government Amendments on the white paper and not with Amendment No. 57. The Amendments with which we are now concerned are to the Bill itself.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman moved the first of the Government Amendments or all of them?

Mr. Marsh: I wonder whether it would be for the advantage of the House if we took the Amendments en bloc on the last Motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is acceptable to the House, yes. Will the right hon. Gentleman now move the whole of the Amendments en bloc?

Mr. Marsh: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think the Motion is, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I might help the House on a point of procedure. We are now amending the Bill itself. We are no longer concerned at this moment with the Lords Amendments.

This is a direct Amendment to the Bill, and the Question that I must put to the House is, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Bessell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you referring to the Amendments on the first page of the white paper, the Amendment in page 69, line 1, and so on? These are Amendments to Lords Amendment No. 56.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are dealing with the Amendment which is the second proposal on the white paper. They are not Amendments to the Lords Amendment because we have already deleted Clause 48. We are now proposing to make an Amendment to the original Bill. I call on the Minister to propose the first Amendment. If the House wishes—and I believe it does—to take all the Amendments to be debated together, after the debate I will put the first Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that the House had deleted Clause 48. With respect, that is not so. We have restored it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg pardon. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. We have restored the Clause. We are now dealing with the Bill as it was before it went to another place. These Amendments are to Clause 48, but not to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 69, line 1, after first 'persons', insert:
'and to sell to outside persons petrol, oil and spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles, and for that purpose to purchase any of those things'.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to:

In page 69, line 3, after 'and', insert:
'the Waterways Board shall have power to sell goods of any description to outside persons, whether or not persons using their waterways, at any place where persons using those waterways may require facilities for the purchase of those goods, and for that purpose to purchase any such goods; and'.

In line 8, leave out 'or subsection (6)' and insert:
'and other than the provisions of this subsection relating only to the Waterways Board'.

In line 39, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

In page 70, line 20, leave out 'or (6)'.

In line 29, leave out from beginning to first 'to' in line 31 and insert:
subsection (2) (which relates to the powers of the Waterways Board'.—[Mr. Carmichael.]

Clause 50

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AS TO POWERS

Lords Amendment No. 57: In page 72, line 32, leave out subsection (2).

Read a Second time.

Mr. Carmichael: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we were to take, at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 58, in page 73, line 7, leave out "subsections (2) and" and insert "subsection".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that that is agreeable.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This subsection deals with the powers of the Railways Board in running hotels. There has already been a very full discussion on the whole question of the powers of nationalised industries to diversify and to make the best of their existing assets and skills where they can do so without detriment to their primary functions. The proposal in these Amendments not to extend the hotel powers of the Board might be considered to be a special case of the discussion that we had earlier, but I think that it is a particularly weak one.
The Railways Board and its predecessor, the old companies and the British

Transport Commission, have run hotels for a great many years. At present, the Board owns over 30 hotels, and makes a very useful profit from them. Its hotel business employs about 12,000 people. In short, the Board is in the hotel business in a big way and undoubtedly knows a great deal about it.
But under the 1962 Act the Railways Board cannot put this expertise to as much use as it might. It is restricted to putting hotels
where those using the railway services provided by the Board may require them, for use both by those and other persons".

Mr. David Webster: The hon. Gentleman said that 12,000 people were employed. For the purpose of Selective Employment Tax, could he say how many males and how many females there are?

Mr. Carmichael: I have not the figures offhand, but I will get them and let the hon. Member have them later. I should imagine that the proportions will be much the same as in the hotel industry generally. I am sure that there will be no great difference.
I suggest that the principle that the hotels should be only at railheads or where there are railway connections is a hangover from the days when there was virtually no other transport, particularly long distance transport, and, therefore, travellers were only too willing to put up in railway hotels or to get shelter near the railheads when they arrived in a strange place. Then they could be expected to welcome and pay for the hotel accommodation that the railways provided.
But I believe that times have changed a great deal since then. The Railways Board has acquired a good deal of knowledge of the hotel business. So I think that, while, in future, much of the business should still be closely related to the trains and the potential railway passengers, the increase in other forms of transport makes this restriction more and more out-of-date and more and more ridiculous.
In Committee on this subsection, in both Houses, supporters of the present restriction seemed unable to make up their minds whether they would be doing the Railways Board a kindness in keeping it out of what they claimed is a risky


and potentially money-consuming business, or whether they were merely protecting the private sector from nationalised industries getting into a profitable line of business. Perhaps someone could explain what the real objection to the subsection is.
In this connection we talked a great deal in the last debate about ideological differences and differences in principle. This is a case where the Railways Board or its predecessors have run hotels for a long time. I believe that this is not a case of setting up a boot factory in the middle of Birmingham, but rather one of doing something very relevant to the job that the Railways Board is already highly skilled in doing.
There is no intention that the Board should expand its hotel activities except where it can do so advantageously. The Minister's control over their capital ex-psnditure is a good insurance in this respect. The Minister made a reference earlier to the difficulty of getting money out of the Treasury as against getting it from certain private sources, and this is very relevant. Anyone who has tried to get money out of the Treasury knows that close scrutiny is given to the case that is made.
The Railways Board has been in the habit of making a profit on the hotel industry. It has been said that the profit is not enough; the Government would certainly not accept this. The hotel business generally has been going through a rather bad time recently and there is no evidence to show that the railways are having a poorer time than anyone else in the industry.

Mr. Bessell: The railways are in a special position in relation to hotels. Most of their hotels are very old buildings which have long since been depreciated from a capital point of view. The problems experienced in the private sector arise because modern hotels cost a large amount of money to build and there is difficulty in recouping the capital. That is a very different issue.

Mr. Carmichael: The railways also have some modern hotels. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Some railway hotels are 80 to 100 years old and at this stage running costs shoot up. I have been to many railway hotels, too many in the last few months when

I have made a tour of the railways, a very exhausting but interesting tour. The idea of a modern hotel being built to such glorious dimensions as the Royal Hotel, at York, is out of the question; in modern terms, I suppose that this would be wasted space. The problem almost balances itself out, so that the running costs in large railway hotels must be quite high and, on the other hand, the railways have one or two modern hotels. They have this experience of hotels and it would be wrong if they were not allowed to exploit it.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to mention another advantage which railway hotels have enjoyed, and that is their proximity to railway termini. Under this proposal they will abandon this great advantage. This advantage has enabled them to function more profitably than other railway enterprises. They are now to abandon this advantage and go into places which are unconnected with railway termini.

Mr. Carmichael: They are not abandoning the advantage. What has happened is that the railways are abandoning their hotels as new forms of transport appear. We are suggesting that the railways should be given power still to provide for travellers—not necessarily by rail but by other means—the good service that they have had from the hotel industry in the past.
The hotels will be under an obligation to act as though they were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise. We are proposing to amend new Clause F—Amendment No. 176—so as to embrace the power in this subsection for the Railways Board to own its hotels. It is difficult to see that private enterprise hotels have any real grounds for complaining about the extension of the railway hotel powers. If hon. Members are honest, they will recognise that the railways have even now a number of hotels which are some distance from rail terminii, and which are run very profitably.
I believe that in most parts of the country railway hotels are among the best-run hotels to be found. Therefore, quite apart from the doctrinaire argument, I do not see why the community should be deprived of the expertise of the railway hotel people within the nationalised railway industry to run these hotels and,


whenever they can, to extend them to places where, if the present form is continued, they would give a good jerk to private enterprise in the running of their hotels, particularly in provincial cities.
I hope that the House will disagree with the Lords Amendments after the statement I have made and the assurance I have given that the railway hotels will continue to be run on a purely commercial basis.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister has presented his case in the penetrating and lucid way we expect from him, but, on the other hand, he has not convinced me that the Government's proposals are sensible or correct. The policy put forward by the Government makes me doubt their sanity. They are seeking to give British Railways the power to become hoteliers in Great Britain and outwith Great Britain throughout the world. They are seeking the right to set up hotels from Bangkok to Blackpool and from Saigon to Skegness. It is another example of the financial irresponsibility and lunacy which is all too typical of this spendthrift Government.
At the present time there are no intolerable restrictions placed on the railways. Their powers are clearly set out in Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1962. The words are:
The British Railways Board shall have power to provide hotels in places where those using the railway services provided by the Board may require them …
The power is not restricted to railheads or stations. In other words, the absurd restriction which has been mentioned is not a real one. There is no case for this wide and sweeping power, which could be abused.
The Minister said that we need not worry because there is the safeguard that it will be the Minister of Transport himself who will exercise this authority. What safeguard is this, bearing in mind that this is the same Minister who in the duration of this Parliament has spent £600 million of public money nationalising the great steel industry? This is yet another example of a further extension of State participation in industry and commerce. I doubt if the full extent of the insidious, creeping nationalisation

which has taken place under the Government has been appreciated. It would be wrong to dwell on that point, but hon. Members may remember the Iron and Steel Bill, the I.R.C. and the infamous Clause 45 which we have just discussed.
Surely the railways have enough problems on their plate without taking up scarce management resources in running a chain of hotels all over the country. The one task which the railways are equipped to do and on which they have knowledge and expertise is the running of trains. It is typical of the folly of the Government that within the last two days we have taken away from British Railways their one expanding railway function of liner trains and given them power to set up petrol stations in Pennsylvania and hotels in Honolulu.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know how keen hon. Members are, but the hon. Gentleman must keep to this Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was doing so. In this extension of the powers of the railways to set up hotels we have to consider the competition which this will prevent in the private sector. Can this be fair competition and is the basis of accountancy such that this would be in the public interest? The last report of the Railways Board states that the present capital value of the hotels is round about £8 million. We must also take into account the capital equipment, which is just over £10 million. If the Minister insists that this is fair competition, the question he must answer is, when was the last revaluation of the assets of British Railway hotels?
The fact is that there has not been a real revaluation for many years, and my impression, backed up by the opinion of experts to whom I have spoken, is that £10 million does not even reflect the site values of British Rail Hotels, let alone the value of the buildings themselves [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is disputing this, as he always seems to dispute sensible points, he may have heard the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who has wide experience of property development and hotels, saying that in his opinion and that of his colleagues the figure of £10 million did not even reflect the site value.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not bring the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) into this because we are very friendly and agree about hotel policy. It is advantageous during debates on the Floor of the House, or in Committee, to know the identity of an authority which is quoted. Can the hon. Gentleman give us the name of the person who has given him this assurance? If not it is quite pointless.

Mr. Taylor: I would challenge the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to state any opinion which I have given here or in Committee, which he has found to be incorrect. On what grounds does he think the figure of £10 million is anything near the real and accurate figure?

Mr. Bessell: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely right in suggesting that the figure of £10 million is totally inadequate. One would only need to take the site values of British Flail hotels in the London area alone to know that this figure is utterly ridiculous.

Mr. Taylor: As always, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bodmin for confirming what I believed to be the case—that I was right about the figure of £10 million being a nonsense. When we are talking in terms of percentages, profits and returns, a percentage which has been used is in relation to the ridiculous figure of £10 million. A return of 5 per cent. 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. on £10 million would look quite different if we had the real values of British Rail hotels.
I do not accept the balance sheet profit on which the Minister is basing his argument as being in any way a real one. I would suggest to the Minister, if he is looking for these extra powers, that the very least to which the private sector is entitled is an assurance that this extention of powers will be on the basis of fair competition, and that there will be a full revaluation of the assets of these hotels.
In support of his case the Minister said these hotels were "very profitable". I wonder on what basis he used those words? He could perhaps look to the fact that in 1965 the working surplus was £880,000. He may have seen, too, that the last annual working surplus was £813,000, a slight reduction. What was

not mentioned was that in a footnote to the accounts it was pointed out that because of a change in the allowance on depreciation to take account of the lives of the hotels the decrease in this depreciation charge had been less than £226,00 in 1967. If we take it on the basis of book values, which we believe are completely out of date, the return is quite inadequate and is certainly not a rising return.
If a proper revaluation was ever carried out the return would be proved to be absolutely ludicrous. In those circumstances it is wrong for the Government to suggest pouring more money into acquiring hotels, when they should be putting more money into the business of the railways. The Minister said that there was, in addition to his assurance, a second assurance, that of the Treasury. He said that so long as the Treasury was there and so long as we have the cold, hard hands of the Treasury making sure that money comes out slowly, we have nothing to fear from this extension allowing the railways to set up hotels all over the world.
The Minister should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for putting an argument like this at a time when British Rail are so short of money for expansion of their own functions, in which they have met with success, and of which they have special knowledge. The National Plan laid down £135 million as being the basic investment for British Rail. This has been successively cut to £120 million, £104 million and there are further cuts in the 1968–69 allocation. It is true that the Treasury is very difficult with money, and surely any money available should be spent on railway modernisation not on the extension of fringe activities. The Minister must be aware of how desperately anxious the railways are to continue electrification work to Glasgow—an expensive item. The money is not there. Are we to be told that the money is not there for major electrification work, but it is there for a world extension into hotel building?
It is in the interests of British Rail to concentrate their attention, finance, and all their energies on the essential matter of running the railways, and not to hive off their interests, money and abilities into fringe activities. I challenge the Minister to tell us the real value of British Rail hotels. I then


challenge him to say, on the basis of that, what the return is. In those circumstances this House would be well advised to throw out this ridiculous Amendment.
We all know that the Government say "Do not worry about these powers because we will not use them. Why should British Rail want to build hotels in Bangkok or Lhasa? Clearly they would not. We have sensible, sane Ministers in the Government, who will make sure that these powers are used properly."
Our experience is that this is not a Government which tends to make sensible decisions. For them to say that it is a safeguard is really no safeguard for us. We do not want to prevent British Rail from running hotels. We are prepared to leave things as they are, to let them run hotels as they are at present. We hope that under a Conservative Government we might obtain better profits, we hope that new and expert management techniques might be introduced. The Government have not made out any case for this ludicrous and wide extension of powers. We suggest that there is no case, and that the Governments' arguments should be forcibly rejected.

Mr. John Farr: I do not want to dwell on the doctrinaire argument to which the Minister referred. I share the views expressed so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and think that this is a form of under-cover nationalisation.

Mr. Manuel: Oh, you suspicious man!

Mr. Farr: It would enable the Railways Board to erect hotels not only anywhere in the United Kingdom but anywhere in the world. If the Minister is to reply, I would ask him to reconsider this. Can he tell me what is the reason for insisting that the Railways Board has the right to erect hotels anywhere it likes? The pattern of the successful Railways Board hotels, which the Minister explained a little while ago, has developed because those very hotels have been in the past, and are today, adjacent to or in conjunction with a railway line. Passengers using the railway line can spend the night there. That is a successful pattern of operation, but what is the point in disrupting it and giving the Railways

Board powers to erect hotels anywhere in the country?
It is even more extraordinary that the Government should seek to give the Board this power when the Board is shedding itself of hundreds of miles of useful track. I can name quite large communities which in recent years have had their railway services completely withdrawn. It seems to be an utter anachronism that at the same time the Board should be seeking power to construct hotels quite divorced from railway lines.
I want to comment on a pattern of activity employed by B.O.A.C. in sensible investment in hotels throughout the world. That is a sensible sort of employment of funds. Air passengers are channelled into B.O.A.C. by this method and at the same time B.O.A.C. is able to keep the hotels profitably employed. But B.O.A.C. has never been stupid enough even to contemplate erecting hotels miles away from its routes, and the Minister will find that all its investments in hotels, which began in 1966 and 1967, are on its major money-making routes and are serving useful purposes with that in mind.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman seems to be forgetting the excellent facilities of the Turnberry Hotel in the very beautiful constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It was built for golfers, not for rail passengers, and it was certainly not built in the period of the Labour Government. I do not think he has ever opposed the operation of that hotel.

Mr. Farr: I am not familiar with all the hotels in the wilds of Scotland. I have no doubt that it is serving a vital purpose, but the general pattern is for railway hotels to be associated with railway lines.
I intervene only to ask the Minister to get the Railways Board to concentrate on running railways properly. Some mixed compliments have been paid to the Board today. I do not think that it is doing a very good job. It has plenty on its plate without seeking to run hotels, and I implore the Minister not to seek these wild and extravagant powers the use of which nobody in the country will ever approve.

Mr. John Hynd: I should like shortly to refer to what has been said about the financing of existing railways hotels, creeping nationalisation and the dangers of hotels being built from Bankok to Amsterdam. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) mentioned the hotel at Turnberry, but there are many other examples. Gleneagles was built by the General Manager of the Caledonian Railway, Sir Donald Matheson, in 1923 or 1924 and it was not built to provide accommodation for those people who were descending at the non-existent station of Gleneagles. It was built specifically in order to increase rail traffic and to concentrate the traffic of golfers in a convenient and economic way to a particularly attractive part of the country. It was a considerable boost in the traffic of the Caledonian Railway and subsequently of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway.
The interesting thing is that this was all done by private railway companies in the interests of developing rail traffic in order to boost the railway industry and to serve rail travellers and to provide them with the kind of facilities they wanted. There was no question that the railways would thereby destroy the private hotel industry. It can therefore be seen at once that the whole objection to this proposal is ideological and that the anti-railway lobby is busy defending the interests of private hoteliers and trying to prevent the railways from doing what private railways were always allowed to do.
A great deal has been said about financing existing railway hotels. I do not have any figures and I am prepared to accept the assessments of other hon. Members, but they have been talking about existing hotels, the old, large establishments built on very generous lines which are very good and which, if modernised and improved, could probably rival some of the palatial hotels on the Continent and elsewhere, and be extremely attractive vis-á-vis the more modern hotels.
But that has nothing to do with the Amendment, which does not propose to close down or maintain or extend existing hotels. It deals with the power of the railway authorities to build hotels wherever they consider that to do so

would be in the interests of transport, and particularly rail transport, and the people who use it. Therefore, ipso facto, they would be new hotels.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It says that the railway authorities should have powers to provide and manage hotels in Great Britain or elsewhere, but it makes no reference to that being in the interests of the railways. It is all to be left to good intentions.

Mr. Hynd: The Amendment provides that the railway authorities shall have power to establish and manage hotels in any part of Great Britain and I am only making the point that that cannot apply to existing hotels. The financing of new hotels or new facilities by the railways would have to have regard to the cost of establishing them and would have no relationship to the costing of existing railway hotels in London or York.
It is said that the paragraph does not refer to whether the hotels should be for the benefit of the people using the railways, but neither did the charters of the private railway companies. The private railway companies were obviously managed in the interests of the owners and directors, who directed themselves to that automatically and sensibly. If it is implied, or even directly suggested, that the Board of British Railways, a nationalised concern, will have no concern for the interests of the railways, that is a very serious criticism of the managers and members of the Railways Board. They are responsible eventually to the Minister. The Minister could displace the Chairman if he were not acting in accordance with the interests of the concern. The Railways Board, as any commercial concern, is responsible for and must be concerned about the efficiency and economic management of the railways. That is its job and that is its responsibility. If the members of the Board do not carry out that responsibility, they can be removed.
To suggest that the Railways Board, any more than the old Caledonian Railway or any other railway, might run riot and build hotels all over the face of the world because it was free to do so, and that the Railways Board would be no more concerned about creating a white elephant and throwing money about and building hotels and other


establishments which were not viable, can mean only that the Tory Party is expressing a complete lack of confidence in whoever may be appointed to manage the railway industry.
Boiled down, we return to the same old argument. It is all a matter of preventing a nationalised service from becoming viable. It is very useful party propaganda at election time and it is very useful for those who can be beaten in the competition for efficiency and service by the nationalised industries, and on those grounds I hope that the House will support the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: In accordance with the custom of the House I have to declare an interest. I am a director of a company concerned with hotel development, but that company has laid dormant for the last four years while I have been in the House. It is right that I should, nevertheless, declare an interest.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) is wrong. There is no desire on my part—nor, I think, on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)—to deny British Railways the opportunity to make additional profits. What I am concerned with—and here I speak from long experience of this business—is that British Railways will be able to enter the of the most risky aspects of property development in every part of the world.
If the hon. Gentleman needs convincing let me tell him what the British Travel Association will tell him, that there is a need for a further 500,000 hotel rooms in London alone. Why cannot they be built? The answer is that every private developer has discovered to his cost that the risk involved in hotel construction is so great that it is almost impossible to raise money for this purpose.
I could give several examples, but I shall mention only two—the Hilton International Hotel chain, and, coupled with that, Intercontinental Hotels, a subsidiary of Pan-American. Almost the only way in which these two groups are able to provide new hotels in places where there is an overpowering demand for hotel rooms is by persuading the Governments of the countries concerned to put up the money, very often on a nil return on

capital, not even interest-bearing capital. Examples of this are the Malta Hilton, the Berlin Hilton and the Pan-American Intercontinental Hotel at Vienna. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be doing the greatest possible disservice to British Railways if we give them the power to go into this kind of highly speculative and dangerous capital development.

Mr. John Hynd: If someone advances that argument, he is, in effect, saying that he has no confidence in the efficiency of those running a nationalised concern. The Railways Board is as well informed about the risks and the possibilities of profit-making in any of these adventures as is anyone else. People on the Board are not likely to run into deficit deliberately.

Mr. Bessell: I accept that the hon. Gentleman may be right, but what concerns me is that if the Clause goes through as it stands we shall be back to the 1962 position. I have looked at the matter carefully, and I have same reservations about the 1962 position. I should not be doctrinaire about whether the hotels should be adjacent to railway terminals. I do not think that that is important.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I do.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman takes a different view from mine, and so does the hon. Member for Cathcart. I respect their views, but I do not agree with them. I do not think that that is the important issue.
What I am concerned with is that at the moment British Railways have a considerable capital asset. Unhappily, we do not know the true value of that asset. Let us consider four hotels in London—the Great Western Hotel, the Great Northern Hotel, the Great Eastern Hotel, and the Charing Cross Hotel. I do not think many land valuers would disagree with me when I say that the site value of those four hotels must be at least £10 million, which is said to be the total capital value of all hotels owned by British Railways.
The obvious way by which an extension of this hotel chain can take place under the terms of the Bill as it stands is for British Railways to borrow on the security of their existing hotels. They


cannot do that at the moment—and this is the wisdom of the 1962 Act—because they cannot form their hotel groups into a subsidiary. It has to be run as part of British Railways. If the change proposed in the Bill were made, and a subsidiary were created, there would be nothing to prevent that subsidiary from putting this real capital asset in hock. We do not know how much it is worth, but it could be used as a security to borrow a substantial sum of money, and British Railways would then be able to undertake hotel development.
6.45 p.m.
I want to see more hotels being built. If British Railways went into this kind of enterprise, plenty of tenants could be found for the hotels. It would be possible to find great international operators who, on the right sort of rental basis, would be only too happy to operate them, but the risks inherent in this would be tremendous. All too often the builders of hotels in various parts of the world have found themselves in the situation of being able to lease these hotels only on a share of profit basis, which does not even service the capital, let alone repay ii, and they often have to reoccupy the hotel because it is not economically viable. We are not talking about the expertise of British Railways within the limited field of terminal hotels, but about people who have had experience of all aspects of the hotel business, and who have had to take that course. I therefore suggest that we would be doing a great disservice to British Railways if we put this kind of power in their hands.
I am not questioning that British Railways would seek the best advice, and would use every means at their disposal to ensure that the capital used was not put at risk, but this is something which nobody can forecast accurately. If there were a formula whereby it was possible to forecast the return on capital invested in a new hotel in any of the great urban centres in almost any part of the world there would not be this world-wide shortage of hotel rooms.
If I could be convinced that giving this power would provide a means of enabling British Railways to make additional profits, I should urge my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby and vote with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I speak from an experience of this business, over a long

time. I am certain that the risks involved are so great that we would only do British Railways a grave disservice by giving them this power, and I am therefore reluctantly compelled to ask my hon. Friends to vote against the removal of this important Lords Amendment.

Mr. Leadbitter: It seems to me that the difference of opinion between the two sides of the House arises from our respective views about whether we should retain the provisions of sections 6 and 25(3) of the 1962 Act. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want to maintain the position laid down by that Act rather than give the Railways Board power to extend its activities.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) gave us a very interesting account of the state of the hotel business in so far as it affects British Railways. He told us that it was necessary to know the value of the hotels involved to enable us to assess whether these powers should be given to the Board. Yesterday the hon. Gentleman said that British Railways have been doing an excellent job. He put forward that view to support the plea that we should not limit the Board's powers by removing the freightliners service from the railways but now that we want to extend the Board's activities because we believe, as he believed yesterday, that the Board is doing an excellent job, he is complaining.
However, the contradiction is worse because the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) a few moments ago said that British Rail was doing a poor job. Hon. Members opposite put forward different reasons for supporting the Amendment. The comments of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) are far more pertinent. His experience of these affairs should not be discounted and his assessment of the shortage of hotel places, the reason for that shortage, and that inability of private enterprise to deal with it, because of capital risk, is a pertinent factor for consideration. The question arises whether British Rail should undertake what private enterprise has decided not to.
I agree with the hon. Member that the Minister should give us some assurances on the point. One of the inherent weaknesses of the English language is that it is not possible to write into a Bill all the "ifs" and "buts" and "whys"


and "wherefores". Intelligent men realise that there are certain things that cannot be written into a Bill with the precision required to meet all the shades of opinion that we express.

Mr. Keith Stainton: The hon. Member might find it useful to refer en passant to subsection (3) under which the Waterways Board is given powers to operate hotels but this power is restricted to points at which services may be required.

Mr. Leadbitter: I accept what the hon. Member says. As I have said, hon. Members opposite want the provisions of the 1962 Act to remain in force. I agree that the provision in respect of the Waterways Board appears to create an anomaly, but it so happens that the complex of transport in respect of waterways is very different from the complex of the deployment of transport systems related to the general modernisation of British Railways. It is a different problem. Therefore, it is competent to take the view that a different answer might be required.
But having agreed that there may be a different answer I should like an assurance that the powers which the Bill seeks to give British Rail will not be such that it will be allowed to develop or to buy or manage hotels in areas on which private enterprise has turned its back, on the sort of criteria outlined by the hon. Member for Bodmin.
In view of the changed position of British Rail in transport, arising principally from its modernisation, although there is a case for increasing its powers and getting rid of all the limitations of the 1962 Act it would be wrong to seek to go beyond those limitations in such a way that British Rail entered fields which were not in keeping with the general wish of the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has said that the Bill gives British Rail power to build hotels in Britain or in any part of the world. This is a sweeping statement. That is not what the House would want to see. We would all agree that it would be silly to build a hotel in Timbuctoo.
If we increase the powers of British Rail the Minister has a responsibility to

explain to the House how the new powers will be exercised. Although it may not be possible to write such matters into the Bill, I suggest that it is possible for the Minister to explain what they are tonight. He can explain the general criteria which will apply in the deployment of these new powers. I should not be happy if the exercise of the powers involved unfair competition. On the other hand—and here I address myself to hon. Members opposite—there are many occasions in commercial life where it is possible to argue that unfair competition is more predominant than fair competition. Hon. Members opposite seem to take the view that unfair competition is wrong if it is exercised by public enterprise or nationalised undertakings but not if it is exercised by private undertakings.
We should not try to inject an argument based too much on commercial morality. Is it right that a nationalised industry involved in transport should be freed from these very strict limitations in the 1962 Act? If it is agreed that perhaps, marginally, it is right that British Rail should be so freed, the Minister has a responsibility to explain to the House what kinds of tests would be applied if British Rail submitted to him a programme of hotel development under the new Act.
If that were done it would be possible to get rid of the extreme arguments on both sides—pro-nationalisation on the one hand and anti-nationalisation on the other—and to give proper attention to the effect of the Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: In debating this Clause the other place got in rather a muddle, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am afraid that some hon. Members here have got into a muddle, and are a little confused as to what this is all about. The only thing that we are effectively discussing is the phrase "and elsewhere". Under existing law British Rail runs many hotels. It runs them very well. It is not confined to railway termini. It never has been. The North Bovey Manor Hotel, with which, as a railway solicitor, I had something to do when it was set up, was nowhere near a railway. The Gleneagles Hotel is not and others are not. There is nothing to prevent British Rail running hotels other than at the railway termini.
For some reason which has not been explained—it is certainly not because railway hotels must be at railway termini—the Bill has been drawn to give the Railways Board power to provide and manage hotels in any part of Great Britain and elsewhere. The other place struck out that Clause, so we are left with the existing law. The Government are asking for the Clause to be restored, but they have not explained why.
7.0 p.m.
I should be very suspicious of the restoration of the Clause for a reason which has not been given. It is a bad thing for the Railways Board to have its attention diverted by activities which are not directly concerned with their principal business. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) said that we were illogical on this side of the House because we had been urging the Railways Board to retain control of the liner trains. Of course we were. That is a matter connected with transport. But the management of hotels which are not in Great Britain is certainly not connected with British Railways and would be an activity which might divert the attention of the Board from its proper activities.
I am reinforced in my view by my memory of a conversation which I had with the late F. R. E. Davies, the great and last secretary of the Great Western Railway. The Great Western Railway had been pioneers of the omnibus company services. It ran buses in Penzance, in Cornwall, in 1903 long before such buses ran in London. It ran buses successfully and at a profit for years. I asked F. R. E. Davies why the G.W.R. sold its controlling interest in the bus companies to B.E.T., Tillings, and others. The answer was that it was thought that, although this was a profitable undertaking which was running well and was likely to expand, it was a bad thing for the G.W.R.'s interests to be diverted into a growing concern which was nothing to do with railways.
The same applies to the running of hotels in places other than in Great Britain. If the Government want a nationalised hotel undertaking let them say so and produce a Bill to that effect. But it does not seem to me a good thing to tack this on to British Railways which

have hitherto run hotels for people travelling by rail, even though some of those hotels are not at the railway termini.

Mr. Gower: The Minister took a good deal of pride in the modest profit earned by the hotels of British Railways. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) adduced a most formidable case against the Minister's argument. One has only to think of the hotels in London to realise that if their real capital were estimated properly that modest profit would be reduced two or three times. It would be only a marginal profit.
It is true that some of British Railways hotels are doing reasonably well, but I have spoken to many friends who stay in such hotels and they all say the same thing. They admit that they are a sort of captive audience. They say, "We go to the Great Western or the Great Northern because they are convenient when we arrive in London. When we arrive, we can deposit our luggage immediately and we do not have to spend so much money on taxis. We are ready to go to our destination within the London area".

Mr. Leadbitter: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is misleading the House to say that that is the case. In my constituency, we have a hotel which is not connected with the railway in that sense but which provides amenities and facilities in such a way that its reputation in the North is second to none.

Mr. Gower: The fact that many of these hotels are at railway termini is a positive advantage which they have rightly exploited. Were they left to operate in competition with commercial hotels without that advantage, there is little doubt that they would not enjoy the business which they do.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin that the building of these hotels is a highly speculative matter. I go further and say that the management of hotels is a highly sophisticated and specialised business today. It is absurd for the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) to suggest that it is comparable with the building of a hotel by the Great Northern or some other railway 100 years ago. In those days, it was not the highly specialised business that it is today.
I warn the Minister that the British genius has expressed itself in many ways but not predominantly in managing hotels and restaurants. One has only to consider the large number of restaurants and hotels staffed and managed largely by French, Italian and Spanish people to realise that this is not our greatest professional trade. We must give full rein to these commercial qualities, and British Rail would be far wiser if it did not try to run these hotels but gave the work to specialists whose main business and concern is the running of hotels and restaurants and did not run hotels as a sideline to running railways.

Mr. John Hynd: Foreigners.

Mr. Gower: It does not matter whether they are foreigners. They come among us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not too parochial to recognise that. British Rail has a formidable and hard job and it would be folly if it were to divert its energies into other fields.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I own hotels and take an intimate interest in their day-to-day running. With that declaration of interest, I believe that what I shall say will be biased in favour of one of my businesses or something concerned with what we are talking about, namely, the management of hotels.
I ask the Treasury Bench to note what the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) said. He issued a warning which was well voiced. The compliment which should he paid to him is that the Ministers will heed it. Unfortunately, what he asked for, namely, a clear statement from the Government about what they intend and details of a blueprint on how they hope to proceed, cannot be done in such a way that it means anything.
Our job is to ensure that the words in the Bill are right. A declaration of intent from the Government means nothing. While it may satisfy the hon. Gentleman if the Ministers give him all sorts of explanations which please him, it will not mean anything to me, and it should not mean anything to him. Our job is to consider the consequences which might flow from the words which we put in the Bill.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for The Hartlepools was aware of

it, but his argument, in his responsible speech, was in support of the Bill as it was left by the other place. If the Bill were left as the members of the other place sent it to us, it would fit almost exactly the hon. Gentleman's argument. Therefore, he should come into the Lobby with us if the Amendment is taken to a Division.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) urges us to be as brief as possible because, as always, he wants to help the Government. That is the sort of man that he is. He does more for transport in this country than anybody else. I support almost everything that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said. The expertise which he brought to the debate was well based, and should be heeded. With one exception, about which I intervened in his speech, I agree with everything that he said.
I am speaking from the point of view of the provincial hotelier, not of the London hotelier. I am not interested in London. That is not England. England is outside London. The problems which the hotel business, in particular, has to face are especially urgent in the provinces. The Government have clobbered the hotel industry almost out of existence. We have had S.E.T. and the initial allowances have been removed, and, as a consequence of the clobbering, the morale is low. In addition to the economic arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Bodmin, there is the fact that when one feels that all Government legislation is against one's own trade, it is demoralising.
Reinserting this subsection will add to that demoralisation. It can be interpreted by private enterprise owners of hotels only as meaning that Government money, collateral and backing will be given to organisations who will be offering unfair competition to them. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) suggested that private hoteliers objected to competition. Of course, they do not like it, but they know that they have to live with it.
It was also suggested that in commerce the competition was often unfair. That is true. Many unfair tactics are used by competitors. But there is always the satisfaction of knowing that, however


unfair we think those tactics are, the competitors are in the same position as ourselves in terms of Government support. But when we feel that we are being unfairly treated by an organisation which is being financed by taxes which we ourselves pay, it is particularly demoralising.
If we reach the point—and the subsection moves us towards it—in which the hotel business thinks that it will have to face Government backing, money and underwriting, and will have to face unfair competition strengthened by the taxes which it itself pays, surely it is entitled to complain. Unless the Government are doing this for the ideological reasons which I mentioned in the previous debate, they ought to drop this provision.
Everybody in the business applauds the railway hotels, particularly those adjacent to the railway termini. They offer a good facility. On commonsense grounds, if the railways already have a site on their own railway areas, it is good sense to use it for the purpose of building hotels, but if they are to use Government-sponsored money to buy other land, away from the railway termini, in order to compete with private enterprise organisations which have none of the railway's advantages, that is unfair, it is known to be unfair and it is demoralising.
It is too late to ask the Government to think again. Having succeeded in pushing through Clause 48, they have to take this step on Clause 50. Clause 48 gave them power to buy and do anything they liked. Under the terms of the Bill, hotels were exempted. They are removing exemptions which made the hotel situation rather different from that of other businesses. To ensure that they put into effect Clause Four of their constitution, we must have this provision.
But if they can have second thoughts, I ask them to have second thoughts about the hotel business. It is having a rough time and it is being dealt with unfairly by other Government Departments. To write this provision into the Bill will mean that our hotel problems will become even worse than they are at present. If we are to play our part in the tourist industry and in providing efficient hotels for travellers who do the buying and selling, we must encourage the hotel owners in this country instead of discouraging them. This is a discouragement,

and I ask the Government to desist from it.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: The debate has been exhaustive, going into practically all the by-ways. We have heard from hon. Members with experience in the hotel business.
I promised to try to obtain figures in respect of male and female employment in railway hotels. Apparently it would take some time to get these figures and I cannot get them at the moment. If it is desired, I will do so later.
Hon. Members have raised the old problem of writing intentions into Acts of Parliament. An intention cannot he written into a Bill. All that we can say is that the Railways Board has no plans at the moment for hotels, beyond regularising the possibly doubtful statutory position of many of the hotels which, at one time, were at railheads or had access to railways and which no longer have such access because of the closing-down of parts of the railway system.
It appears to us that it is rather unlikely that the railways will decide to build hotels in Hong Kong and Tahiti, as was suggested in another place. We do not expect them to do that. On the other hand, they may well wish to build hotels in connection with their shipping services on certain parts of the coast or in connection with the Channel Tunnel. Or possibly B.O.A.C. may wish to use the railways' expertise in connection with hotels, asking the railways to build hotels in various parts of the world.
This is all speculative. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) rightly said, it boils down to a question of the trust which we have in the competence of the people who have run the railway hotels for a long time. I did not say that the railway hotels made a handsome profit. I said that they were making a modest profit. I admitted that the hotel business generally was going through a difficult period, and I added that the railways were holding their own in this difficult business.
One problem which was raised, and which would be substantial if the argument were correct, concerned the valuation of the hotels. We have no reason to believe that the valuation of £10 million is very far out. We do not believe


that it is seriously out. In any case, any large discrepancy will come to light under the terms of the Companies Act, 1967. The valuation of British Transport hotels is sometimes rather difficult because in many places the hotel is physicallly part of a station. But there are large numbers of railway hotels and not all of them are in wonderful sites. Some are in areas where the ground valuation is very low. Gleneagles and Turnberry have been mentioned, and others, too, have been mentioned. From the figures which we have been given we do not believe that £10 million is markedly out. This point will be brought home when we have to revalue in terms of the 1967 Act.
The subject has been well covered by hon. Members. It boils down to the fact that there is inconsistency in the argument of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) wanted the freightliner service to be expanded, but now—it suits his argument—he says, as part of his ideological argument, that he does not want railway hotels to be built, even though the railways have much expertise in this field and much experience. Some of their hotels are very old, but some were opened only this summer. The railways built a hotel in St. Andrews which they opened in May, and the general opinion of people in the hotel business was that it would be a good hotel which would pay. Some of the hotels are over 100 years old. We believe that they are bringing a good return on the investment put into them.
Furthermore, it is not as though we can suddenly move hotel managers and staff to some other function on the railways. If, as has been claimed, this is a highly specialised business—and I believe that running hotels is a specialised business—then if the railways ceased to run their hotels, the staff would simply run the hotels for some other body or find other jobs in the hotel business outside the railways. If the job is so expert—and I believe it is—then we cannot expect the staff suddenly to be switched to some other job in the railways. We believe that the experience which they have should be exploited to the maximum for the Railways Board and for the nation, and I

therefore hope that my hon. Friends will support me if hon Members opposite press this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Webster: The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to move on quickly and I appreciate that he did not have time to give all the information which he has, but we should like answers to some of our questions. To use an unhappy metaphor, somebody somewhere would like a letter from him.
We wanted freightliners to stay with British ailways, but we do not want the railways to expand into the hotel business elsewhere because we think that they should be busy running railways. That is the point of the exercise. The Parliamentary Secretary said that they were highly profitable hotels. Let us look at the balance sheet. Last year the figures were: properties £7·8 million, equipment £3·6 million. This year they are; properties £8·4 million, equipment £4 million. That is £11·4 million and £12·4 million respectively. The profit was £0·7 million and £0·8 million respectively. This is a return on historical capital of 6 per cent. and 7 per cent.
I have argued on this subject for a long time. In the debates on the 1962 Act, I recall, I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) whether he could give a valuation of these hotels for the same purpose, and he could not. I hazarded a guess that it must be about £35 million. If that is so, then the profitability is less than 2 per cent., which is very much less than the rate on the money which would be borrowed by a hotelier to run his hotel, which today would be at least 8 per cent.

Mr. Bessell: Supporting evidence for the hon. Member's argument is the valuation of the equipment in relation to the capital value of the property. He has only to see the obvious discrepancies there and the illogicality of that valuation to see that his figures are right.

Mr. Webster: I am grateful for the hon. Member's support, because he is much more expert in this matter than I am. The rate which I have given is about a quarter of the borrowing rate. It represents therefore, a substantial loss. In effect, all these hotels are being subsidised at the taxpayers' expense. It may


be all right to do that in conjunction with a railway and close to a railway station in order to encourage railway travel, but is it a method of running a hotel in Gleneagles or Moreton in the Marsh so that American tycoons can play golf at the expense of British taxpayers? We should limit these activities. I am not saying that we should get rid of Gleneagles, although at another time we might do so.
We should limit the railways to hotels close to railway facilities, as the Lords

suggested. We want them to concentrate on their proper business. We have had amiable assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, but the best assurance of all is the Lords' Amendment, which I ask my hon. Friends to support in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 199.

Division No. 298.]
AYES
[7.24 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Anderson, Donald
Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Archer, Peter
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lawson, George


Ashley, Jack
Ellis, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
English, Michael
Ledger, Ron


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ensor, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Barnes, Michael
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bornett, Joel
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Baxter, William
Finch, Harold
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Beamy, Alan
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bence, Cyril
Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blackburn, F.
Forrester, John
McBride, Neil


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCann, John


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
MacColl, James


Boston, Terence
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacDermot, Niall


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gardner, Tony
Macdonald, A. H.


Boyden, James
Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bradley, Tom
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mackie, John


Brooks, Edwin
Gregory, Arnold
Mackintosh, John P.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, peter (Preston, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Manuel, Archie


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mapp, Charles


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hazell, Bert
Marks, Kenneth


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David


Carmichael, Neil
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hilton, W. S.
Mendelson, J. J.


Coe, Denis
Hobden, Dennis
Millan, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Concannon, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moonman, Eric


Conlan, Bernard
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howie, W.
Moyle, Roland


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoy, James
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cronin, John
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Newens, Stan


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, John
Oram, Albert E.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jeger, George (Goole)
Padley, Walter


Delargy, Hugh
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dewar, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Park, Trevor


Dickens, James
Judd, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dobson, Ray
Kelley, Richard
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Pavitt Laurence


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)




Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Pentland, Norman
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)
Weitzman, David


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Silverman, Julius
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Skeffington, Arthur
Whitaker, Ben


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Slater, Joseph
Whitlock, William


Price, William (Rugby)
Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederic


Rankin, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rees, Merlyn
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Swain, Thomas
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Swingler, Stephen
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Symonds, J. B.
Winnick, David


Roebuck, Roy
Taverne, Dick
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thornton, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tinn, James
Yates, Victor


Rowlands, E.
Tomney, Frank



Ryan, John
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Sheldon, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wallace, George





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fortescue, Tim
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foster, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley


Astor, John
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maddan, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maginnis, John E.


Awdry, Daniel
Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mawby, Ray


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bull, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grant, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector


Bessell, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus


Biffen, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
More, Jasper


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denb'gh)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Neave, Airey


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brains, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bryan, Paul
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Heseltine, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hill, J. E. B.
Pink, R. Bonner


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, H. P. G.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Clark, Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Corfield, F. V.
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridsdale, Julian


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Robson Brown, Sir William


Crowder, F. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Currie, G. B. H.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lambton, Viscount
Scott, Nicholas


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharpies, Richard


Dean, Paul
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Silvester, Frederick


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Speed, Keith


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stainton, Keith


Errington Sir Eric
Loveys, W. H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Eyre, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric
Tapsell, Peter


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Carthcart)


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)







Teeling, Sir William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Walters, Dennis
Woodnutt, Mark


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Ward, Dame Irene
Wright, Esmond


Tilney, John
Webster, David
Wylie, N. R.


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. Anthony Royle and


Waddington, David
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.

Clause 55

AMENDMENTS AS TO TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES

Lords Amendment No. 61: In page 82, line 3, at end insert:
() shall include consideration of the charges made for any service or facility and any question relating to the discontinuance or reduction of services provided by any of the bodies named in paragraph (b) above, thereby deleting the relevant reference in section 56, subsection (5) of the Act;

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
My right hon. Friend has considered this Lords' proposal with the utmost sympathy, as has been done time and again in relation to other Amendments. He has been forced to the conclusion that it is impracticable. The charges, just taking the Railways Board alone, would run into thousands if not millions of £s, and one of the objectives with which we are concerned is to give the Board commercial freedom to achieve viability. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, come to the conclusion that this proposal is unacceptable.

Mr. Tom Bradley: I am astonished that no hon. Gentleman opposite has risen to say something about this matter. The Opposition have made such a song and dance about line closures since they left office that it is amazing that not one hon. Gentleman opposite has risen to speak following the remarks of the Minister of State, which I received with great regret.
I will be brief because time is pressing. This matter is of considerable importance. The Lords Amendment would widen the remit given to the T.U.C.C.s when considering applications for line closures. I would have thought that any action

taken to strengthen the machinery of supervision over possible line closures would have been a matter which the House would wish to discuss in greater detail.
In a debate on transport last year I asked my right hon. Friend the then Minister, when she drew up the Bill, to include powers for widening the terms of reference of the T.U.C.C.s. I regret that that was not done. Not only have people like myself, who are actively engaged in the transport industry, been asking for this facility, but the T.U.C.C.s themselves have been asking for this sort of widening of their terms of reference.
In the latest Annual Report of the Central Transport Users Advisory Committee for Great Britain a number of Amendments to the 1962 Act are proposed. Among these, the Committee refers to the limitation of reporting only on hardship factors and the way in which this reduces its usefulness. It also considers that the embargo on considerations of reductions in passenger services should be removed, since it has been held by many people that such reductions cause as much hardship as line closures—and that is what this Lords Amendment is all about.
On 15th July this year my right hon. Friend consented to the closure of the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle line. In his statement consenting to that closure, he said that the size of the grant needed to keep the line open, even if it were rationalised and modified, would not be justified on a value-for-money basis. In other words, the Minister takes into account not only hardship factors but also marginal considerations in terms of cash. If the Minister does this—and we know that he properly does—surely the T.U.C.C.s. should have this sort of evidence before them when discussing the cases which they must consider.
What is the difficulty? Are they not to be trusted with the facts? What is everybody afraid of? I should have


thought that there was no great difficulty in the Government reconstituting the transport users consultative committees in order to equip them to examine the financial aspects of rail closures. I know that one of the criticisms made is that only amateurs are levelling these criticisms at the committees, and at the railway authorities themselves, but it is not only amateurs who are questioning railway costings. We now have entering the ranks a former general manager of the Eastern Region, who has gone on record as challenging such costings.
I suggest that the case for doing what the Amendment suggests is now more urgent than ever before. Most of the lines in the network which were hopelessly uneconomic have already been closed and we are now dealing with those cases which are not so clear cut. Indeed, looking at some of the examples, I sometimes wonder whether there was ever a clear cut case.
An example is the Sheffield to Manchester line, known as the Hope Valley Line. We hear that that line is to continue in operation, but it was proposed for withdrawal in October, 1964, Ministry consent to the closure was given in October, 1966, but the alternative requirement which the Minister imposed was so expensive—the subsidy for the bus operators was £38,000, and some trains still had to operate—that a basic railway service was costed. It was then found possible to reduce a loss originally estimated as £210,000 per annum to £10,000 a year. What a mockery this makes of the proceedings before the transport users consultative committee, when the railways tabled their original costings. I know, as many of us do—and I have told the Minister this before—that all railway costings are suspect. They should not be taken at their face value.
If this Amendment were accepted, a T.U.C.C. inquiry would also be able to examine the way in which a line was operated. In other words, the railways should be put under a more searching public test. There have been many allegations in the past of the railways deliberately running down the quality of a service with a view to getting rid of the passengers and so establishing a case for closure. There have also been accusations of restrictive practices on the part

of trade unions. If the consultative committees were enabled to examine these matters, those who are convinced that the allegations are unfounded have nothing to fear. The efficiency with which a line is operated is an important factor. Substantial economies can be made by means of the concept of a basic railway service. That has been proved, and is now practised in East Anglia.
In connection with the proposed Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle line closure, the Minister said that to retain the line on the present basis would cost £700,000 per annum; that to operate on the present basis to Hawick alone would cost £400,000 per annum, but that, with strigent economies, the service to Hawick could be retained at a cost of £250,000. That means that even on the stretch from Edinburgh to Hawick costs could be reduced by 40 per cent. If savings like this can be made by operating more efficiently it is an important matter. People in the area are entitled to a public inquiry at which they can hear and question all the facts put forward, especially when, as I have already said, in the final analysis the Minister is making a judgment on a value-for-money assessment.
As I understand it, in most cases the crucial factor in determining whether money will be made or lost by closing a line is the amount of contributory revenue a line brings in its feeder capacity to the rest of the network. We have never been able to challenge the railway authorities on their division of receipts between contributory revenue and earnings confined to the local part of the journey. In fact, the organisation with which I am connected has found the railways unwilling to prove that their previous calculations were either correct or unfounded. We are told that it is counter-productive, which is the modern jargon used as an excuse for not doing something because one does not want to do it.
The Amendment does not seek to establish a power of veto: all it asks is that there should be the right to have a full examination of all the facts when a community's line is placed in jeopardy. It is rather regrettable that the Government have been unable to concede the case on this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60

USERS OF CERTAIN GOODS VEHICLES TO HOLD OPERATORS' LICENCES

Lords Amendment No. 62: In page 86, line 3, at end insert:
( ) to the use of tractors and machines registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962, at the agricultural rate of duty and used within the conditions specified therein; or
( ) to the use of any mechanically propelled vehicle exempted from the duty chargeable under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 in accordance with the provisions of section 6(6) of that Act; or

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The principle here is one that I have reiterated far too many times, namely, as members of the Standing Committee will recall, that we should not put exemptions into the Statute, but should deal with them by means of regulations. That is the sole reason for my right hon. Friend resisting this proposal, but I can say quite definitely that he has it in mind, subject to the usual consultations which are necessary, to propose that the categories of vehicles mentioned in the Amendment should be included in exemption regulations under Clause 60(2,b). I hope that that assurance will give some satisfaction to those who are concerned.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: Is the Minister of State undertaking to exempt all the vehicles referred to in the Lords Amendment?

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that, subject to the usual consultations, he proposes that the categories of vehicles here mentioned should be included in exemption regulations under Clause 60(2,b). I am resisting the Amendment solely on the ground that we want to deal with exemptions by regulation and not by incorporating them in the Statute.

Mr. Awdry: I only wish that the Minister had said this before. When I raised the matter earlier we did not get a categorical assurance of that kind. In Standing Committee, I raised the question of dual purpose vehicles and at the same time we dealt with particular Amendments of this kind. Subsequently, very definite assurances were given in

their Lordships' House about dual purpose vehicles, and their Lordships were satisfied with that assurance. Nevertheless, even last week, no definite assurances were being given about the vehicles mentioned in the Amendment.
I would remind the House that in the first part of the Amendment we are dealing with machines described as "agricultural machines" in the Third Schedule to the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962. I understand that to mean all vehicles going about the business of farming—taking farm produce to and from the farm, and so on. We are very pleased that at last the Government have definitely said that all those farm vehicles as defined in that Act will be exempt. We do not now mind that being done by regulation so long as the assurance is quite clear. It will relieve the anxieties of our farmers.
The second part of the Amendment refers to other vehicles, not just farm vehicles. These are vehicles which pass from one part of land in an owner's occupation to another part, or vehicles which operate for a total of only six miles in a week. We are talking, not only about farmers, but about builders. They, too, will be relieved to hear that these vehicles are to be exempted. It would have been very stupid if all the paraphernalia of transport managers' licences had to apply to farm vehicles—combines, tractors. What a pity the Minister did not "come clean" before. Then all this anxiety would have been removed. This is an Amendment on which there is very strong feeling.

Mr. Peter Mills: I, too, am grateful for what the Minister of State has said. This will allay many of the fears of those in the farming community, those concerned with growing timber, and those concerned with taking it from woods. I wish that the Minister had said this before, because this proposal has caused much concern in the industry. The industry has enough restrictions and problems without their being added to. If there had not been the promise of this concession, there would have been another difficulty for farmers to overcome.
Farmers are not opposed to the principle of quality licensing. Safety is very important. However, these vehicles are in a different category. The distance


that they may travel is strictly limited by existing laws.
I repeat that we are grateful for the Minister's announcement. I hope that his assurance is absolutely copper-bottomed and that the regulations will cover the type of vehicles we have been discussing. I hope that there will be no argument on this.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am very glad that the Minister has made this concession. It will help agriculture a great deal. It will also help the Ministry, which will be relieved of a great deal of useless administrative work.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Minister's assurance, as I heard it, was the categorical statement that everything included in the Amendment would be exempted in the regulations, subject to consultation with the industries. I am certain that that consultation will reveal that the industries will wish all these vehicles to be exempted. We naturally accept this as a Government undertaking. I would like the Minister of State to confirm that it is the same kind of undertaking, and is as firm an assurance, as the assurance which was given that livestock would be exempted from the quantity licensing. We accepted that assurance from the Government. We trust that this assurance is of the same calibre, in which case, we would not wish to divide the House.

Mr. Swingler: By leave of the House, may I say that I had hoped that I was being helpful to the House in giving the assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend. Hon. Gentlemen will realise that while a Bill is under consideration by Parliament the Minister must necessarily have some time to consider how he may use powers which he has not yet been granted, because not until they are on the Statute Book can the Minister properly consider the matter.
I assure the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) that the assurance I gave to the House and to those concerned, solely in relation to the vehicles decribed in the Lords Amendment, that my right hon. Friend has it in mind to propose that they should be included in exemption regulations, was a quite firm assurance. On that basis, and because we do not want to include

exemptions in the Statute, because it would be invidious to include some exemptions and then deal with others by Regulation later, I hope that the House will agree to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62

APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATORS' LICENCES

Lords Amendment No. 63: In page 88, line 25, after "centres" insert:
or an applicant with operating centres in more than one licensing authority area shall be permitted to make application to one licensing authority in respect of all his operating centres

Read a Second time.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment would allow an applicant for an operator's licence under the quantity licensing system who had operating centres in the areas of more than one licensing authority, to make a single application to one authority for a licence to cover all his operating centres rather than having to make separate applications to each authority concerned. It is on the lines of Amendments which were discussed in Committee on 28th March, when an Amendment was withdrawn without division.
We have considered this question with care, but my right hon. Friend finds it impossible to accept this proposal, which seriously under-rates the genuinely local elements which are involved in the quality licensing system. The assessment of past records of operators, for example, could not possibly be achieved by mere reliance on the submission of paper. The licensing authority's own knowledge of operation in the area, often built up over a period of years, is vital.
This hardly affects present A and B licence holders, because they already have to apply for carrier licences on a regional basis. We recognise that it affects present C licence operators, and those operators will have to give to the licensing authority separate information about each of their operating centres, about the licensed transport manager, about their maintenance facilities and arrangements, and about the vehicles which are stationed there.
If we are to treat the quality licensing system in a serious way, and if it is to be a serious check on the standard of maintenance facilities, it is essential that it should be dealt with in each region by the licensing authority on the basis of applications made to him.
Looking at the proposal from the other point of view, it would inevitably take longer to issue a licence in cases where one licensing authority had to consult several other licensing authorities because the applicant had operating bases in several areas but was, nevertheless, making a single application to one licensing authority to cover all those operating centres. It would not necessarily in any way expedite the system to say that it could all be dealt with by a single application. It would seriously reduce the value of the consideration by the regional licensing authority of the maintenance facilities and the character of the operating centres in each region.
Therefore, after very careful examination, we cannot agree to the centralisation of the system in this form. I hope that the House will agree to our original proposal that there should be separate applications to the licensing authority in each region.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The Minister's reply will give immense disappointment to operators of fleets, particularly those who have been running C licence fleets in the past. As I see it—this aspect of the matter was raised in the other place and the argument was very well put—this is not, as the Minister suggests it is, a problem of geography. Most of C licence operators run fleets, as A and B licence holders have done. Hitherto, the fleets have been managed as whole, as part of one company. The most important factor is that a fleet operator, that is, a manufacturer operating his own fleet, should maintain the standard of the fleet as a whole regardless of the geographical location of the vehicles or the depots and other centres. This is of particular importance in the consumer and retail trades. Hitherto, it has been the reputation of the fleet which counted.
As Lord St. Oswald said in the other place, and as their Lordships agreed, it would be possible for one fleet operator

to apply for a licence not only for the central depot but for all the depots. This would not debar the authority issuing the licence from proceeding through the other licensing centres concerned in order to secure an assurance that the fleet was maintained to an adequate standard throughout the country.
The system of operators' licences calls for a great deal of paper work, and the consequence of the Government's proposal will be to put a great deal of further administrative work on to the operators. It will be one more example of Parkinson's Law operating, with creeping bumbledom and bureaucracy; but the brunt of it will not fall on the licensing authority.
I say again, as I have on earlier occasions, that the licensing authorities have conducted themselves in exemplary fashion in the past. There is a very good relationship, and I see no reason why it should not continue. But the Government's system will mean that the licensing authorities avoid the extra work; it will fall on the operators of vehicle fleets, particularly those who have been C licence holders.
Although I recognise that the Minister has a point of view on this question, I am appalled that he has not looked at it the other way round and asked the licensing authorities to adjust their arrangements rather than ask operators to adjust theirs in order to fit the scheme under the Bill. I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to accept the Minister's Motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. G. Campbell: At earlier stages the Government's argument was that it was necessary for the different licensing authorities to be able to examine arrangements for maintenance in their own areas. We understand that view perfectly well. What we cannot understand is why the Government could not arrange for one licensing authority to receive the application and deal with the other licensing authorities on matters such as inspection of maintenance arrangements arising in their own areas.
A great number of items have to be considered or be the subject of information provided in applications for licence—particulars of the numbers and types of vehicle, the financial resources of the applicant, the question of observation of


drivers' hours, overloading, the previous activities of the individual or company, names of directors, and so on. Information on those matters can be supplied in one application and be dealt with by the licensing authority in which the headquarters or main operating centre of the company is based.
The smaller amount of information regarding arrangements for maintenance could be sought and looked into by the simple procedure of the licensing authority which receives the application referring to its neighbours or other licensing authorities in order to have those points looked into. To ask the firm to put in applications of this kind and to require a great deal of information to be given to all the licensing authorities concerned, and then to ask those licensing authorities to process it separately, is to waste a great deal of time. It will tend to make the firms concerned distrust the system as thoroughly bureaucratic and demanding a great deal of unnecessary paper work.

Mr. Swingler: I hope that no one will accuse me of wanting to multiply bureaucracy or bumbledom. One of the things we are doing under the Bill is to free licensing authorities from a great deal of work by abolishing licensing altogether for 900,000 vehicles, all the smaller vehicles, thus liberating them to concentrate on what we regard as the more important task of raising standards of safety and maintenance in other respects.
Hon. Members have still not grasped the essence of the system, which is the concept of the unit, the operating centre with a transport manager who takes responsibility for it, with local control in the form of a licensing authority having knowledge of the character of the maintenance facilities, the efficiency of the operating centre and the standard of management.
As regards the big firms, it all depends on how many operating centres they have and how many managers they have to appoint under the terms of the quality licensing system. That will depend on the degree of concentration of their operations and the extent to which they are spread throughout the country. I recognise that hon. Members opposite have a view here. We have thought about it very carefully, but we just do not see

that there would be any saving of time if their method were adopted. An element of local knowledge and local control is necessary.
If the system were centralised, with applications going to one point, all that would happen would be that, after they had gone through that mail box, so to speak, the licensing authority receiving them would have to contact licensing authorities throughout the country which, in their turn, would have to consider standards of maintenance facilities and the qualifications of managers in their areas. Then, presumably, it would all come back through the chain of command to the first central mail box. I cannot see that that would give any advantage. The licensing authority in the area is the appropriate body. It will work on a regional basis.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will not the Minister's method lead to utter confusion? Let us suppose that one licensing authority does not grant a licence to one operating centre. This will play havoc with the fleet of vehicles, will it not? If one licensing authority is unfair or, perhaps, establishes a different standard from that adopted by another, the fleet will be affected and one will find, perhaps, two or three operating centres knocked out. There will be no way of co-ordinating operations from the operator's point of view. I readily acknowledge that the Minister has a point on administrative convenience. I am putting the point of view of the operator. He has enough troubles anyhow, and he will find his position greatly weakened if two traffic depots are put out of action because of what different licensing authorities do.

Mr. Swingler: I see the hon. Gentleman's point, which is undoubtedly serious, but it is the basis for rejecting the proposal. The implication of what he says is that if an applicant shows that he has one efficient operating centre, with proper maintenance facilities, and one competent transport manager, he should get a licence for the lot, however inefficient his other facilities may be, or however incompetent may be the rest of his managerial staff.
That is something that we cannot accept if we are to have an effective quality licensing system, and that is why I


stressed the element of local control. I know that it is a challenge to the trade and the operators, but I do not think there will be a very large number of these cases.
It is very important that if an organisation has several operating centres it should be challenged to show that they all come up to the standard required, and that if it has several managers they are all competent to take the responsibility with which they are charged. That is the purpose of saying that firms should make applications to the appropriate licensing authority where they have an operating centre. That is how the system will work, and I am convinced that the licensing authorities will work very closely with the leading people in the industry to make sure that uniform standards are applied in its application.

I am convinced that that is at any rate the way in which we should start if we are to show that we are determined to have an effective quality licensing system. It may well be that with experience we shall in the course of time devise other and more streamlined ways of dealing with the matter. I certainly do not count that out, but we should be wrong not to insist on that local unit, the operating centre, dealing with the regional licensing authority, the proper body to apply the standards and criteria, and to insist, therefore, on the requirement to make an application in each licensing area.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 193.

Division No. 299.]
AYES
[8.13 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Anderson, Donald
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Archer, Peter
Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Edmund
Hunter, Adam


Ashley, Jack
Dempsey, James
Hynd, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dewar, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dickens, James
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dobson, Ray
Janner, Sir Barnett


Barnes, Michael
Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Barnett, Joel
Dunn, James A.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Baxter, William
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;P'cras, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ellis, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael
Judd, Frank


Bishop, E. S.
Ensor, David
Kelley, Richard


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kenyon, Clifford


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Booth, Albert
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Boston, Terence
Fernyhough, E.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur
Finch, Harold
Lawson, George


Boyden, James
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Foley, Maurice
Ledger, Ron


Bradley, Tom
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Brooks, Edwin
Ford) Ben
Lestor, Miss Joan


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Forrester, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gardner, Tony
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McBride, Neil


Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
MacColl, Jamos


Cant, R. B.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacDermot, Niall


Carmichael, Neil
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Macdonald, A. H.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gregory, Arnold
McGuire, Michael


Coe, Denis
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackie, John


Conlan, Bernard
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackintosh, John P.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Maclennan, Robert


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hazett, Bert
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cronin, John
Heffer, Eric S.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hilton, W. S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Dalyell, Tam
Hobden, Dennis
Manuel, Archie


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hooley, Frank
Mapp, Charles


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howie, W.
Marquand, David


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, James
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Christopher




Mendelson, J. J.
Price, Christopher (Perry Bar)
Swingler, Stephen


Millan, Bruce
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Symonds, J. B.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Price, William (Rugby)
Taverne, Dick


Moonman, Eric
Probert, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rankin, John
Thornton, Ernest


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Rees, Merlyn
Tinn, James


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Tomney, Frank


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Urwin, T. W.


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Neal, Harold
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Newens, Stan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Wallace, George


Oakes, Gordon
Roebuck, Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ogden, Eric
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Weitzman, David


O'Malley, Brian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wellbeloved, James


Oram, Albert E.
Rowlands, E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Orbach, Maurice
Ryan, John
Whitaker, Ben


Orme, Stanley
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Whitlock, William


Oswald, Thomas
Sheldon, Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Padley, Walter
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Park, Trevor
Silverman, Julius
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Slater, Joseph
Winnick, David


Pavitt, Laurence
Small, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)



Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mr. John McCann and


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Swain, Thomas
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Errington, Sir Eric
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Astor, John
Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Awdry, Daniel
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Fortescue, Tim
Loveys, W. H.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Foster, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
MacArthur, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McMaster, Stanley


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maddan, Martin


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maginnis, John E.


Berry, Hn. Anhony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bessell, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray


Black, Sir Cyril
Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman


Braine, Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Burden, F. A.
Hay, John
Nott, John


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Carlisle, Mark
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Channon, H. P. G.
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, J. E. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Clark, Henry
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Pounder, Rafton


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cordle, John
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Currie, G. B. H.
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dance, James
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Doughty, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Robson Brown, Sir William


Eden, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)







Royle, Anthony
Teeling, Sir William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Tempts, John M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Scott, Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tilney, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Sharpies, Richard
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Silvester, Frederick
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sinclair, Sir George
Waddington, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wright, Esmond


Speed, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wylie, N. R.


Stainton, Keith
Wall, Patrick



Summers, Sir Spencer
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tapsell, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Hector Monro.


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Webster, David

Lords Amendment No. 64: In page 89, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Carmichael: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that this and Amendment No. 65, which are both Government Amendments, might be taken together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): So be it.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose here is to give power to licensing authorities, in the very few cases where it may be necessary to inquire into a company's financial ability to sustain a satisfactory level of maintenance and to observe other road safety regulations.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: We need not spend much time on this, although it is an important Amendment, because this is one of several occasions that we are now reaching where the Government have, I am glad to say, at last seen the light. This Amendment and the ones associated with it were proposed from this side of the House during the various stages of the Bill when it was going through this House and they were rejected by the Government.
Although it has taken time for the penny to drop, we welcome this conversion, although it is late, and so will the industries affected. It is now clear beyond any doubt that there is no element of quantity licensing in this part of the Bill, which should, of course, be devoted entirely to quality licensing.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 65

CONDITIONS AS TO TRANSPORT MANAGERS

Lords Amendment No. 66: In page 92, line 37, after 'licence' insert 'of the prescribed class'.

Mr. Carmichael: I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be for the convenience of the House to take, at the same time, the following consequential Lords Amendments—Nos. 69, 214, 216, 217, 218, 222, 223, 224 and 234.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that would be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is purely precautionary, to allow the transport manager's licence to be in different grades. Discussions are going on at present in the Transport Managers Licensing Committee set up by the industry, but it is necessary to have powers to provide for licences of different classes in the Bill reflecting the different grades of qualification required for different types of establishments and different types of fleet.

Mr. G. Campbell: These Amendments are a very important group which are the result of proposals put forward in the other place by the Government. We on this side of the House are sorry that we do not have time this evening to give these new proposals the examination which they deserve.
The Government were much more forthcoming on the whole subject of transport managers' licences in the other place. They have now set up a committee of the industries concerned, outside the House, to consider what the transport manager's licence and the qualifications


for it should be, and they have introduced the Amendments to provide for different classes of licence.
We should like to know how many classes are thought to be necessary, even approximately, and a great deal more information. But I will not press this on the Government tonight, because there is not time to go into it. I would only ask that the Government should seek to keep the House informed and give us opportunities to discuss all the developments in this important field, which is of concern to all operators of road vehicles over 30 cwt. unladen or 3½ tons gross weight.
Where the question arises of an operator with only one or two eligible vehicles—which was much discussed in this House and the other place—we should have preferred such an operator to need only an operator's licence and not himself have to hold a transport manager's licence as well when he himself may not, although a very conscientious operator, be a mechanic or expert in the internal combustion engine. We know that the development of the transport manager's licence and the qualifications for holders will now be the subject of regulations. Regulations which come before the House can only be accepted or thrown out; we cannot amend them.
One important thing that has emerged is that the Minister's suggestion during the Report stage in this House that a local garage proprietor or mechanic can be the holder of a transport manager's licence on behalf of a farmer or small businessman was a preposterous suggestion. A Minister in the other place made this clear when he stated:
I do not wish, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Minister would wish, to argue very strongly that the answer to the small man's problems is to be found in the garage, I do not think it was intended to be other than a case, or a possibility, which might arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd July, 1968; c. 366.]
So, as we thought at the time, the Minister was, to put it bluntly, talking nonsense to us that evening when he was trying to explain away the position on that basis.
We commend the Government's setting up of the Committee and their expressed intention to have close consultation with the industries affected. There is still a

great deal more about the concept of transport managers' licences and the classes the Government have in mind which not only we but many persons concerned outside this House would like to know. There is no argument here about the need for safety and good maintenance. On this everyone is agreed, that we do not want industry to be swamped with paper, red tape, or impracticable requirements.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Awdry: I do not want to be offensive, but I feel that on the question of transport managers' licences we have been treated shabbily by the Government. In Standing Committee, the Guillotine fell about three minutes after the subject was opened, when I was moving an Amendment, and we received no information as to how the system would work. On Report, we had a full debate on transport managers, and that was the first occasion when the Minister was drawn in. He had not been on the job long, he was thinking aloud and that was the occasion when he told us that perhaps the garage proprietor could be a transport manager. We now know that that is not right.
Their Lordships discussed this matter last week on Report, and from reading the OFFICIAL REPORT we learn of the existence of this Committee that has been set up by the industry under the chairmanship of Mr. Derek Joyce. The spokesman in the other place, Lord Hughes, said:
This is a Committee which has been set up by the industry itself to look at this problem, and it is still considering the problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is quoting what a Government spokesman said in another place. If not, it will be out of order.

Mr. Awdry: I was doing just that; I was quoting from the Government spokesman, and he was dealing with this Committee. If I may just complete that short passage, he went on to say:
…but the position is that this Committee is still considering the matter, and my right hon. Friend the Minister feels that it would be quite wrong for him to come to any firm conclusions on this very important point before he has been able to consider the report which the transport managers' licence


committee of the industry will be making in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 7th October, 1968 Vol. 296, c. 893.]
I gather that in the other place the Government still did not know how the system would work. They have thought about the idea generally and are asking the industry to tell them how it will work, and hon. Members will have no chance of ever stating their views about how the system will work. As my hon. Friend has said, regulations will come before the House in due course, we will either have to take them or throw them out, and, as the Whips will be on, the regulations will be forced through. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what ideas he has in mind, and what sort of classes there will be for transport managers' licences?

Mr. Carmichael: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to say that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) cleared up one point that I was anxious to make, which is that this Committee was set up not by the Government but by the industry on its own initiative. As the hon. Member said, the chairman is Mr. Derek Joyce of Shell-Mex. Also on the Committee is an officer of the Institute of Transport, and members from the Industrial Transport Association, the Institute of Road Transport Engineers, the Institute of Traffic Administration, the Road Haulage Association and the Traders Road Transport Association. The Ministry and the Road Transport Industry Training Board are represented by assessors.
While there may not have been sufficient time in Committee to go into the matter as thoroughly as we would have wished, the Minister and the previous Minister have always maintained that this is something that will be worked out with the industry. In fact, we went further and said that we hoped the industry itself would ultimately take over the entire running of the system and make the transport manager's job a recognised professional qualification. We anticipate that it will be run by the industry, and we are very grateful to the industry for setting up the Committee.
It is true that there will be decisions made from time to time. I cannot now say how many classes of transport managers there will be; this is for the

Committee to recommend, and it would be presumptuous of me to give an idea now. As the Minister considers the deliberations of the Committee, and as these deliberations come in, I give an undertaking that the House will be kept informed of the steps proposed.

Mr. Awdry: I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary. Does he mean that before the regulations are put before the House there will be an opportunity for the House to consider this matter? This is the important thing. Is he saying that the Minister will tell the House in good time the sort of plan he has in mind so that the House can debate it?

Mr. Carmichael: I will undertake that the House will be kept informed as the information and decisions come from the Committee and are examined by the Minister before the regulations are finally put before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 67

DURATION OF OPERATORS' LICENCES AND GRANT OF INTERIM LICENCES

Lords Amendment No. 71: In page 95, line 15, leave out "shorter" and insert "longer".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient for the House to take Lords Amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 74 and the Government Amendments that have been tabled in lieu of the Lords Amendments.
I hope that we can reach agreement very quickly on this point. The overall effect of the Lords Amendments here is to remove from Clause 67 the original provision that a licensing authority may, for administrative convenience, grant an operator's licence for a shorter period than the normal five year duration, and to substitute a provision that in those circumstances the licence may be granted for a longer period.
There is no dispute that because of the changes in the licensing system, some flexibility about the duration of the


granting of licences must be permitted to the licensing authorities, for administrative convenience, otherwise there will be a log-jam at a particular time. The argument has been whether the licensing authority in varying the duration period should make it shorter or longer. That is why we have put down the Amendments. The effect of them is that for administrative convenience, the licensing authority may grant licences for a period either shorter or longer than five years. I hope that it will be felt that both sides have got their way if this compromise solution is acceptable.
It is quite right under these circumstances, since both sides appreciate the work done by the licensing authorities and their vast experience, that they should be given complete discretion. Because of the transitional period during the change-over to the new system a licensing authority may, for administrative purposes, wish to grant licences for either longer or shorter periods than five years.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: The Minister of State has been most persuasive and has dealt with some of the finer points raised in another place. Lord St. Oswald and others asked why there should not be longer or shorter periods. The Amendment, by the insertion of the word "other" instead of "shorter", goes somewhere to meeting some of the finer flights of oratory in another place.
I must ask the Minister of State to see the point of view of the operator of a fleet of vehicles. He and the Government seem utterly to fail to understand the position of a person earning his living by running a vehicle or a fleet of vehicles. The operator who is an owner fully understands and accepts, or may accept, particularly if he is well versed in the modern ways of transport, the need for efficiency and the need to comply with the requirements of the quality licence as such.
But, the operator having achieved that, for that licence for administrative convenience, because there is a period of change, at the behest of the licensing authority to be altered for a shorter time—perhaps there will be no objection to a longer period—may mean that the operator's whole plan for financing his very way of life will be jeopardised for the convenience of the licensing authority.
We do not want to hit the licensing authorities, because they have professional tasks to perform, but bureaucracy has been unduly kind to the licensing authorities and the operator of a medium-sized business, or owning his own fleet, because of administrative convenience and change, having once been awarded a licence, may suddenly find that it is taken from him through no fault of his own in order that a suitable and convenient programme for the licensing authority can be arranged, although that original wording has now been changed to read so that it is now if the licensing authority is of the opinion that it is "desirable".
This is a bureaucrat's paradise, not that the licensing authorities have asked for it. It gives them power to act in an offhand way and it will discourage operators, because they will have no certainty that, once having been granted a licence for five years, or whatever time it is, even if they are observing its conditions, they will continue to hold it. I hope that the Minister will understand the point of view of a person who earns his living on the road. He has gone some way to meet the arguments of the other place, but I shall urge my hon. Friends not to accept his proposition.

Mr. G. Campbell: We suggested these Amendments at earlier stages in this House, but, because of our guillotine, we were not able to do justice to them, although the other place has had time to consider this subject. The result is the Amendments by the Government, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has indicated, make an improvement, but still leave power to shorten the duration of the licence for the convenience of the authority. We welcome the proposed addition whereby the period of the licence can be extended, a proposal not previously in the Bill, but we firmly resist the proposal that the period could be shortened simply because the licensing authority considered that desirable.
The wording has been changed. Originally it was administrative convenience, but now it is administrative desirability. This will lead to uncertainty as to whether the licence will run for the period stated, or, for some reason thought to be desirable, be terminated, perhaps suddenly,


before the time stated. This will make it difficult for operators who have been given licences to be certain that the period attaching to them has any significance, and I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter on which we should stand firm.

Mr. Swingler: By leave of the House, I think that there is some misunderstanding and I am glad to have the opportunity to clear it up. It has been pointed out to me that, on a superficial reading of our Amendments, some people seem to have sprung to the conclusion that we are going beyond the argument of administrative convenience and the programme of work with which the licensing authorities will be faced and that we are widening their scope to vary the duration. I make it clear that that is not so. If our Amendments were incorporated, the paragraph would read:
shall be a period longer or shorter than five years if the licensing authority is of opinion that it is desirable so to direct in order to arrange a suitable and convenient programme of work for the licensing authority".
In case there is any misunderstanding, I emphasise that it is being done simply and solely on that ground. In other words, we want to stick to the five-year duration for licences.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: As a number of these people may be buying their vehicles on some financial arrangement, or possibly a hire-purchase arrangement, may I ask the hon. Gentlemen whether he appreciates that this shortening of the licensing period may make it difficult to arrange finance?

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate that, and no doubt the licensing authorities will take that into account. That is why, as far as possible, we wish to stick to the five-year duration for licences. Under Clause 93 virtually all the licences will be issued within a very short space of time. It can therefore be seen that if all the licences are for a five year duration, they will all come up for renewal

at virtually the same time, which will present the licensing authority with an administrative problem.

That is simply and solely the point that we are making. There has been nothing between us on the administrative aspect of this issue. This discretionary power is given to the licensing authority to vary the duration simply and solely to ensure that the situation to which I have referred does not occur, namely, that all the licences come up for renewal in a very short space of time. Having considered all the arguments, I think that it is fair to leave it to the judgment of the licensing authorities on how to achieve what we want. They are the people who will take into account the interests of the operator, as well as the application of the standards laid down here.

Throughout these proceedings we have heard the argument of shorter versus longer. What we are endeavouring to do is to give the licensing authorities a complete discretion so that they can arrange a fair spread of their work in dealing with licence applications, and, later, with their renewal. We think that they should be able to vary the licence duration and grant it for less than five years, or for longer. We are prepared to leave it to the licensing authorities.

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman gave us an interpretation in case we had misunderstood the meaning of his Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 73. There is no misunderstanding about this. The hon. Gentleman may think that it is a small point, but it is one to which we attach significance because we do not see why there should be this discretion to shorten the period of a licence. We understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 192.

Division No. 300.]
AYES
[8.48 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.


Alldritt, Walter
Barnes, Michael
Blackburn, F.


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Joel
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Archer, Peter
Baxter, William
Booth, Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Bence, Cyril
Boston, Terence


Ashley, Jack
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Boyden, James


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.




Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Brooks, Edwin
Hough ton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Padley, Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howie, W.
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hoy, James
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Park, Trevor


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Conlan, Bernard
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)



Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rankin, John


Crawshaw. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rees, Merlyn


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roebuck, Roy


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lawson, George
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davits, Harold (Leek)
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ledger, Ron
Rowlands, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ryan, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sheldon, Robert


Dell, Edmund
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dewar, Donald
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dobson, Ray
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Slater, Joseph


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Eadie, Alex
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


English, Michael
Macdonald, A. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ensor, David
McGuire, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Swingler, Stephen


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Symonds, J. B.


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Finch, Harold
Maclennan, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thornton, Ernest


Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tomney, Frank


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Freeson, Reginald
Mapp, Charles
Wallace, George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gardner, Tony
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Garrett, W. E.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wellbeloved, James


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Wells, William (walsall, N.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitaker, Ben


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wilkins, W. A.


Gregory, Arnold
Moonman, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wililmas, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Moyle, Roland
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Harper, Joseph
Neal, Harold
Winnick, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stan
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hazell, Bert
Oakes, Gordon
Woof, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric



Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hilton, W. S.
Oram, Albert E.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Hobden, Dennis
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bell, Ronald


Astor, John
Balniel, Lord
 Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian
 Bessell, Peter







Biffen, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Pink, R. Bonner


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hay, John
Pounder, Sir Rafton


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Braine, Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Royle, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Frederick


Cordle, John
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Corfield, F. V.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambton, Viscount
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Lane, David
Summers, Sir Spencer


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling, Sir William



Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W, F. (Ashford)
Loveys, W. H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Doughty, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Tilney, John


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Waddington, David


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn.. Sir Derek


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wall, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Glyn, Sir Richard
Miscampbell, Norman
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Montgomery, Fergus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wright, Esmond


Grieve, Percy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wylie, N. R.


Gurden, Harold
Nott, John



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Hector Munro.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to: In page 95, line 15, leave out 'shorter' and insert 'other'.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 73: In page 95, line 25, leave out from "made" to end of line 29, disagreed to.

Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to: In page 95, line 20, leave out from 'section' to 'in' in line 27 and insert:

(a) shall be a period shorter than five years—

(i) if the applicant for the licence so requests; or
(ii) if the application is made by a person who does not hold an operator's licence when the application is made;

(b) shall be a period longer or shorter than five years if the licensing authority is of opinion that it is desirable so to direct.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Consequential Amendment to the Bill agreed to: In page 101, line 22, leave out "(c)" and insert "(b)".—[Mr. Swingler.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Clause 68

VARIATION OF OPERATORS' LICENCES

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 97, line 13, at end insert:
( ) If an applicant under this section so requests, the licensing authority may, pending the determination of the application, give an interim direction under this section, that is to say, a direction expressed to continue in force only until the application, and any appeal arising out of it, have been disposed of; and a request for such a direction shall not for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section be treated as an application under this section".—[Mr. Carmichael.]

Clause 69

REVOCATION, SUSPENSION AND CURTAIL MENT OF OPERATORS' LICENCES

Lords Amendment No. 76: In page 100, line 30, leave out "a public" and insert "an".

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 77, 85, 89, 90, 97, 98, 225 and 226.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: The Government have not explained Amendment No. 76 and the other Amendments which we are discussing with it. I will not detain the House unduly, but these Amendments seem to meet a point which we made very strongly at all stages when the Bill was passing through the House. It concerned safeguarding confidential commercial information when inquiries were to be made. The Government indicated that they would consult the Council on Tribunals and would look into the position generally.
I hope that before we leave this group of Amendments the Government spokesman will tell us whether they result from consultations with the Council on Tribunals and whether, as we think, they seek to remedy the previous situation in the way in which we represented.

Mr. Carmichael: May I have the permission of the House to reply. The Amendments are designed to give effect

to an undertaking given by the Government in Standing Committee F, in connection with the need for in camera hearings which occasionally arises. It would, however, remain in the discretion of the licensing authority or tribunal, as the case may be, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances whether it would be right to grant this request. The Government have put these Amendments down in the spirit of what they were asked to do in Standing Committee F.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 78: In page 100, line 36, leave out "Minister" and insert "Transport Tribunal".

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I invite the House to consider at the same time, Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 82, 83, 91, 96, 99, 100, 227 to 231, and 237 to 243. I have to inform the House that Privilege is involved in Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80.

Mr. G. Campbell: The Minister did not make a statement on this very large group of Amendments. This is another case in which the Government have met a point which we urged very strongly as the Bill passed through the House. I acknowledge that the Minister of State took my breath away on Report by telling me that the Government intended—although they had earlier said that they would not do so—to change the whole appeal procedure so that appeals would go to the Transport Tribunal and not to the Minister. We welcome the fact that this has been done in another place and that the Government are carrying out what we urged very strongly upon them, although it took some time for them to see the light.
They are right to do so. The Transport Tribunal is used to such work and operators are used to dealing with the Tribunal. In our opinion it would have been entirely inappropriate for appeals to have gone to the Minister. There


would inevitably have been very long delays in Departments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Clause 71

CONTROL OF THE USE OF LARGE GOODS VEHICLES

Lords Amendment No. 84: In page 102, line 11, after "section" insert "which shall not be before 31st December 1971".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is very clear—and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) will agree with me on that if on nothing else. In the course of the many long, sometimes tedious, but always interesting debates on the Bill, I doubt whether any part of the Bill has attracted more time, more comment and more misrepresentation than this part of it. What is sought is to defer the date of the introduction of quantity licensing. It is basically a political argument. There is nothing wrong with that in a House of politicians.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: The whole country would like to see this decision taken after another election, because the next election will be fought on this issue. It is political in so far as the electors have to choose which party should affect their destiny.

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member conjures up the interesting, if somewhat frightening, picture that the next General Election will be fought on quantity licensing. It is possible, but I doubt it. He says that the whole country is against this proposal, but I doubt whether it is one of the issues uppermost in the minds of the country, although it is of considerable concern to the industry and it would be absurd to pretend otherwise.
The reason that it is a cause for concern is that hon. Members opposite, for reasons which are their own, since the introduction of the Bill have deliberately gone out of their way to paint this as the

most terrifying piece of legislation ever enacted in this country. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who is more florid in his views, apparently disagrees, and he is more representative on this matter.
In the debate in another place Lord St. Oswald summed the position up very well. He said that in his opinion, because Mr. Edward Heath said that a Conservative Government intended to abolish licensing, he took it that by 31st December, 1971 a Conservative Government would have the power as well as the will to do that. The idea of anybody electing the Conservatives again is an absurdity, but if that were to happen, an interesting position would arise.
This part of the argument about the Bill was discussed clearly and at length in all its aspects—some of the points relevant and some of them not—during the passage of the Bill. What we are faced with by this Amendment is an attempt to prevent the Government from legislating on the basis of proposals which were in Committee and which have been before Parliament for all this time.
The House would perhaps be justified in agreeing with the Lords in this proposal if, and only if, hon. Members were of the opinion that the legislation—the quantity licensing system—was as bad, as serious and as dangerous as hon. Gentlemen opposite have attempted to paint it at the political hustings. The hon. Member for Hallam said that the industry thought that it was this bad. The hon. Gentleman no doubt knows as well as I do, from speaking to people in the industry, that that is not so.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I was referring to the views of British Rail, too. The railways will be affected by this and the views that have been expressed include those of the railways.

Mr. Marsh: I cannot recall any violent representations against quantity licensing from British Rail, either from the management or unions. [Interruption.] I do not know what hon. Gentlemen opposite are complaining about, for if the men who work for the railways and their management are not representative of the industry, it is difficult to know who is. Some of my hon. Friends are more closely connected with the industry than I am. All the evidence proves that the railway


industry would be upset if there were any attempt to stultify these proposals.
Generally speaking, people in the road haulage industry recognise, having read the Bill and the speeches that have been made during its passage, that this piece of legislation will have a minimal effect on road haulage. We have said on many occasions—a great many speeches have been made about quantity licensing and I do not intend to make a long speech on it now; indeed, we know each other's views so well that we could write each other's speeches—that with the freightliner trains in their early days, there will be an advantage to everyone if we get the freightliners in operation just that little bit earlier and transfer a very marginal quantity of freight to them. We have built into the Bill firm safeguards for everyone. Nobody will be forced, as was suggested in the beginning, to cart his goods many miles because they must go by rail. Time and again we have said that goods will be transferred to the railways only if British Rail can prove that, in terms of cost, reliability and speed—these three factors have been defined in the widest possible sense—the railways can offer as good or a better service than road transport.
We aim to achieve a marginal switch in the increase which we expect to accrue in traffic to the road haulage industry. It makes nonsense, at a time when we complain about congested roads and an insufficient return on capital invested in some of the nationalised industries, to adduce the sort of arguments expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite when we have here a service which has already begun to prove itself very well indeed, so that we can now take full advantage of it.
In short, the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite has been "phoney" from the beginning. [Interruption.] It has been phoney from the outset. It has been painted in colours which were lurid even by their standards.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Really!

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart will agree that his hon. Friends can do a good job of painting any topic in lurid colours.
The hon. Member for Worcester has given his version of the implications of

quantity licensing. I am sure that his remarks on this subject will trouble his conscience in years to come. There has been gross exaggeration about this and the industry recognises this. It would be absurd for any Government to produce a situation in which freight was being forced on to an uneconomic method of transportation. That is not our intention, and there is no way by which that can happen under the Bill.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite support the Lords Amendment, they should be fully aware that they are supporting what is only a wrecking proposal. It is intended to do nothing but put off the date for as long as possible. It is an attempt to use an argument different from that adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee, where it was successfully, over many days, shot down by the Minister of State. I am surprised that that experience has not had its impact on them. This matter having been discussed so fully; I trust that hon. Members will not repeat all the arguments used in Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I was wondering whether the Minister was himself not going rather wide of the Amendment. As I understand it, the Amendment does not permit of a general discussion of the principle involved but permits a discussion solely about the time when the Clause should come into operation.

Mr. Marsh: I agree that this is a narrow Amendment. It is concerned solely with the date of operation and I need not pursue the matter further, except to say that for the reasons I have given, to put the date off for the period proposed would deprive the railway industry of an advantage which it can otherwise obtain without any disadvantage to the road haulage industry.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: We are glad that the Minister arrived in the Chamber just before this Amendment was called, but had he been here earlier he would not have said what he has just said about a Minister in the Standing Committee, because his colleagues the Ministers at the Ministry of Transport, have for the last 20 minutes or so been admitting that many of the Lords Amendments we have been welcoming were Amendments they


rejected at that stage, and we were congratulating them on eventually seeing the light.
He would also have heard us discussing the fact that when he was speaking on quality licensing on Report and telling us about the transport manager's licence which could be held by the garage proprietor on behalf of a local farmer he was truly at sea and putting forward a preposterous suggestion which had to be put right in another place. Now he tells us about quantity licensing, and only in the last half hour have we been seeing how little he knew about quantity licensing on Report.
This sensible Amendment would give the country a chance to decide whether, amongst other follies of Socialism, the country wanted this new system of quantity licensing which is bound to slow down and hamper freight transport and also raise its costs. We submit that the date proposed would be an excellent addition to the Bill. Under the new procedures, a licence would be required by anyone wishing to send a heavy lorry over 100 miles, and a licence, known as a "special authorisation", would also be needed for loads of specified materials of over 11 tons for a very much shorter distance. That point in the quantity licensing proposal is very often overlooked, but it is a very severe matter. That is why we suggest that the date of the start of operation should be some considerable time hence.
Clause 71 and that part which follows it in the Bill is objected to by every body representing trade and industry in the country which has to move goods in quantities. It is thoroughly obnoxious, for example, to the C.B.I.—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come to the Amendment, which is about the date.

Mr. Campbell: That is why we are suggesting that the starting date of the Clause should be postponed. If the C.B.I. had welcomed this proposal, with the rest of the associations representing trade and industry, we might have suggested that the date be put forward. It is because they all find it thoroughly obnoxious that we believe that the starting date of the operation of the Clause should be postponed—

Mr. Marsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must draw your attention to the fact that a few minutes ago when precisely the same argument was put forward I was called to order, quite understandably, by Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the grounds that there was nothing in the Amendment other than the date.

Mr. Speaker: The Deputy Speaker called the Minister's attention to the fact, and I have already called the Opposition spokesman's attention to the same point.

Mr. Campbell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the date is very important. That is why I intend to concentrate on it, because it is the users of transport throughout the country who are concerned that this Clause should not come into effect until the country has had an opportunity—because the date of operation would be after the next General Election—to decide whether this, amongst other Socialist proposals, should be put into effect. Otherwise, the users of transport—not the road haulage industry, to which the Minister referred—who are the main people concerned, will be deprived of choice of method of transport, and a bureaucratic and burdensome procedure will be imposed upon them for taking the decision for them.
There are some improvements to the system, but it remains an incubus threatening trade and industry—

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing now the merits of the Clause. We are discussing whether it should come into operation on the date which the Amendment in another place proposed.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, Sir. Because I sat down immediately you rose, you did not hear me coming to the date. I was about to say: if the Clause is not postponed until the date suggested in the Amendment. The Minister knows that an alternative voluntary system has been suggested to him by the Traders Road Transport Association. The Association would be willing for its suggested system to start as soon as the procedure was ready for it. The Minister has rejected this alternative proposal.
The Minister said that the Clause, whose operation we seek to postpone, would have a minimal effect upon the road haulage industry. This is where


the right hon. Gentleman makes a great mistake, because he talks about the road haulage industry. That is only the minor part of those affected. Only 40,000 of the 100,000 vehicles which are expected to be involved are part of the road haulage industry. The other vehicles are used by firms to carry their own goods. There are many other people affected by the Clause: although they do not operate transport, they must send quantities of goods about the country. Therefore, the road haulage industry is only a small part of those who are affected and who thoroughly object to the Clause being brought into operation on the earlier date which the Bill unamended would propose.
The Minister also spoke about road congestion. The Clause, if it is not postponed as we suggest, will make the roads even more congested, because it will encourage a growth in the number of vehicles of less than 16 tons laden weight. Vehicle manufacturers know that to avoid this tedious procedure and the uncertainty of whether licences will be issued the 32 tonners and other large vehicles are likely to be manufactured in smaller quantities in future and vehicles of 16 tons laden weight or less are likely to be manufactured in greater quantities. There will in future be two vehicles where before there was only one. The Minister is using congestion on the roads, which is something that everybody wishes to avoid, as a spurious excuse for bringing the Clause into operation earlier than we would wish.

Mr. Marsh: Since this is being argued in terms of an Amendment to the date of operation, can I make the point clearly that, if there is any tendency, which I doubt, towards smaller vehicles—in other words, for a person to double the size of his fleet so that he can cut the weight of each lorry in half—the only reason for this is that hon. Members opposite have greatly exaggerated the position. There will be a tiny diversion of traffic from road to rail, as hon. Members opposite know full well. It cannot be in anyone's interest to pursue the line which the hon. Gentleman is suggesting operators are pursuing of deliberately going over to uneconomic vehicles.

Mr. Campbell: On the question of the date and the postponement of the opera-

tion of the Clause, the Minister says that we are in a minority in taking this view. The transport correspondent of The Times, Mr. Michael Baily, says this:
The same cannot be said of the quantity licence, which remains, after the many fruitful modifications to the Bill"—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is again drifting into the merits of Clause 71. We are deciding tonight whether it should come into operation on the date appointed in the Bill or on the date proposed in the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to that.

Mr. Campbell: I am very conscious, Mr. Speaker, that my argument must be related to the date. I am endeavouring to do that, but, as I explained, I must, at the same time, say—I hope that this is in order—why we consider that the operation of the Clause should be postponed and why the date in the Bill is too early. We regard the Clause as obnoxious, but I hope that you will not expect me to say simply that it is obnoxious and then sit down without explaining brieflly what the point is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue on this Amendment that the Clause is obnoxious. He may have had the opportunity in the past, but he does not have it now. We are discussing the date on which the Clause shall come into operation.

Mr. Campbell: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should read what the transport correspondent of The Times said on 19th September. He made clear what trade and industry think of the Clause the operation of which we seek to postpone. He is not a party spokesman, but someone giving the views of trade and industry.
Earlier this year, I questioned the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on the important question of date. I asked the right hon. Lady whether she had been accurately reported in saying that quantity licensing would not come into effect for two years. She replied that she had been misreported. I am sure that hon. Members remember that very well. The question was very much one of date, Mr. Speaker, and the right hon. Lady made clear—this is my interpretation—that she thought that two years was much too


long a time. Two years would have taken us to the end of 1969. That is what we found objectionable and what the majority of trade and industry outside the House found very disappointing.
We were, therefore, somewhat reassured when the present Minister of Transport made a statement on 19th September. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that thus relates entirely to date. I have here a copy of the Ministry Press notice which was issued giving the Minister's statement. In it he said:
Operators licensing will be introduced in the autumn of 1969 and the transport manager's licence by early 1970. And the probability is that the special authorisation system will take effect some months later, always provided that the freightliner services have developed sufficiently by that time.
At that point "some months later" took us, perhaps, to the middle or end of 1970, a considerable advance on what the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said. She was not prepared to accept the end of 1969 in her reply to my question.
We are considerably reassured by the Minister's statement in September, and we feel that he is, perhaps, a more sensible Minister in this respect than his predecessor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that I am not one to throw abuse about. We see a difference between those two approaches, and we much prefer the approach of the present incumbent. We feel that the right hon. Gentleman is on this major matter seeing the light. We hope that he will go further and that the penny will not take such a long time to drop as it has on some of the previous Amendments.
With all the changes and reshuffles which happen in the Government—more today, I gather—there is a possibility that the present Minister of Transport will not stay in office very long. We do not know. In his previous incarnation as Minister of Power the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with industries that would be very much affected by quantity licensing, and he knows that many of them disliked it intensely. Therefore, he hopes that quantity licensing will not be started until the middle of 1970 or later. But if he left his present office and the right hon. Lady returned to it, or it were filled by somebody who thinks in the same way as she does, there is no cer-

tainty that the view the Minister expressed in September, which almost meets the Lords' Amendment, would prevail.
Therefore, to safeguard the position it would be safer for the country and the House to adopt the Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I recognise the difficulty of keeping within your direction, which I think is the right one in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker. I want to try to confine my remarks to the straight issue of whether the orders should be applicable as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made or whether there are reasons for incorporating the date in the Lords' Amendment. On that narrow issue, I should like to advance certain transport reasons rather than the reasons of dogma that we too often hear.
First, it has been said that those most concerned are the fleet operators. I challenge that. I seriously challenge the inference behind it that fleet operators up and down the country are the people with the decisive voice on whether we should introduce more discipline onto the roads in this connection, and whether we should do it at a convenient date to them in the future.
I suppose that most of us are among the 9 million "other motorists" who use the roads. When I am with business associates and they are hampered in their journey, whether they are going over the hills from Lancashire or from Yorkshire, and have to slow down from a reasonable speed, they frequently say, "It is about time we found sensible ways of getting these unduly heavy vehicles off the roads."
The most remarkable thing is that a few months ago that sentiment was expressed to me by the traffic manager of a large fleet. One part of him subscribes to the views I have heard from hon. Members opposite, while another part is one of the 9 million people using the roads saying the sensible thing, that if there is limited road space and inconvenience resulting from the low speed of one form of vehicle in the open country, the Bill's provision is sensible and necessary.
The question is whether we should impose some discipline as soon as possible, as the Bill permits, or to defer what is


right and proper until an arbitrary date plucked out of the air. We should put the dogma on one side and remember the need for a certain amount of discipline in transport matters. From the point of view of the family and residential areas, apart from the motorist, the proposal is the way forward, if it is administered sensibly and soon. Deliberate delay for three years would be an undue penalty, and I doubt whether constitutionally one sovereign House can impose it on another later.
My second point is the complete liberty that has been possible hitherto for the professional carrier or the head of a very large firm using very large vehicles with bulky contents. They have hitherto had practically unlimited liberty on the roads. I am not arguing about the fiscal basis on which they have done it. There are arguments at other times about this. I am concerned with the problem of liberty and whether it is desirable to limit it as soon as is sensible or whether we should in cold blood defer it for another three years. In 1962 we deferred the breathalyser test. In 1967 we had more sense, and the results are with us.
I suggest that in large measure we have all to face up to the fact that the abnormal vehicle on the road must be subject to some additional disciplines in respect to its movement. I would have had quantity licensing in a different way, but I do not want to discuss that at the moment. I am simply discussing whether we should impose a reasonable form of discipline in this respect on the open road, on which there are now 10 million drivers. Often probably 18 million people are travelling on roads of all types. We must consider to what extent, and when, we should apply some form of discipline to these essential loads for industry. Hon. Members opposite are very much concerned with dogma and forget the wider application for the people at large. The plain fact is that ordinary men and women want these abnormal loads taken off the roads so far as can sensibly be done.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying hard to keep in order, but he must keep to the question of the time, whether the clause comes into operation on the

appointed day or on the date suggested in the Amendment.

Mr. Mapp: I was seeking to do that, Mr. Speaker. The ordinary person wants this to be done as soon as possible, and will not see any validity in the argument that once one has accepted the principle of some form of discipline it should be introduced at some time at the end of the next three years. This is the contradictory position of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: The hon. Gentleman has got me wrong. It is possible that the scheme will produce more congestion on the roads, and there is not time to have the roads built, particularly in our centres, if this is forced on us without some delaying operation, such as is provided by the Amendment.

Mr. Mapp: I know a little about the costings of vehicles, and I equally know of the first reaction of the businessman to do precisely the kind of thing to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. But the cold hard facts of costs would be such that the possibility of what the hon. Gentleman has said is likely to diminish the more he looks at it.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: The hon. Gentleman has got me wrong. I am not talking about costs. I am talking about the increased congestion as a result of the measures proposed in this legislation.

Mr. Mapp: I did not misunderstand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it leads logically to the businessman saying "Shall I put the second vehicle on, with all the costs that that involves, or should the 17-ton load go by railway?" This is not a political matter to the businessman. It is just the judgment of costing. At one time I was fairly familiar with this subject.
Lastly, if we are rejecting 1971, what should we then say to the Minister so as to allay fears about the early application of this legislation? Subject to the generality of the Bill, and the Act later, it is the responsibility of the Minister to make such consultations with all sides of industry, including the alternative rail transport facilities, so that the legislation can be brought into force as soon as possible. I think that the outside trading world, with perhaps the exception of


the odd prejudiced person in the road haulage industry, will accept the fairness of this. Those of them who have no vested interest, and are not tied up with the professional problem of transporting goods by road, will see that we have brought a measure of discipline to this problem within a period much sooner than is provided in the Amendment.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I had not intended to intervene in this debate. In Committee I pointed out the difficulties that this Measure would impose and I shall not reiterate those difficulties but concentrate on the question of time. I am not satisfied that the dialogue, not between politicians but between rail users, people who manage the commercial side of railway transport, freightliner transport people, people who handle the commercial side of road haulage and the industrial user is by any means complete.
During 1969 and 1970 we shall go through a period of economic stress. We shall want to get our goods rapidly, efficiently and at low cost from factory to customer and from factory to port.
I will not go through the arguments we had in Committee on the merits and demerits. The object of quantity licensing is to force goods off the road on to rail by means of legislation, regardless of the merits and demerits, but subject to the arbitrary decision of licensing authorities and other bodies. Hon. Members opposite imagine that we on this side of the House and the users of transport are against sending goods by rail. This is far from the case. Some criteria must be decided, and this must not be rushed, on what are the best goods to send by rail. Criteria must be established for taking goods off the road and reducing congestion wherever possible.

Mr. Marsh: What criteria would the hon. Gentleman suggest other than cost, reliability and speed?

Mr. Osborn: Choice is the main one, and flexibility. These factors have been suggested in Amendments, but the choice must not be a choice forced on people by legislation. It must be a choice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must link what he says about criteria to the question of whether this legislation comes into force on the appointed date

or on the date mentioned in the Amendment.

Mr. Osborn: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. The Minister distracted me. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) suggested that we were tied by dogma. This is far from the case. Not only will loads be put into a large number of vehicles, but these vehicles will go through cities to reach freightliner terminals, resulting in increased congestion. One of the merits of delaying this is to ensure that we have ring roads around towns and cities before putting more traffic on to the roads.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I have followed closely the hon. Gentleman's argument about congestion as a result of traffic going to freightliner terminals, most of which are now in large towns. Would not the final result be that if, on the merits of cost, reliability and so on, traffic is diverted by the choice of the business management, the net road haul will be substantially less than if it was road-hauled throughout?

Mr. Osborn: I hope I will not be ruled out of order in explaining this point, which was debated fully in Committee. If goods have to be shipped from Sheffield to, perhaps, north of London, it is a matter of three to three and a half hours on a motorway, and that is over the 100-mile limit. The alternative is to go into Sheffield, to a freight depot, then into a London depot and out through North London to the customer. This not only increases the costs, but the congestion.
The Minister asked whether this issue was not a political one. Users of transport, those who have to shift goods from factory to customer or port, realise that forcing goods off the road on to rail—accepting that there may be more congestion, although I have not arbitrarily and dogmatically said that it will happen but it is quite likely—would sooner that other criteria had been applied than this cumbersome system of quantity licensing.
All responsible people wanted time to review this, and undoubtedly if there were a change of Government we would have had the time. Certainly this unworkable Measure would not have been forced on to the country at a time critical to its economic survival.

Mr. Peter Doig: There are two very good reasons why this proposal should be delayed. First there is the question of costs. Although the Minister has said that the test will be on cost between road and rail, road costs will be substantially increased as a result of this Clause. Because of the difficulty of obtaining return loads higher rates will have to be charged for the initial load.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must link his argument about costs with the question of the date.

Mr. Doig: It is necessary, in view of the country's present financial position, that this proposal be delayed, because it will undoubtedly increase the cost of transporting goods needed for export.
The men who actually drive the vehicles as well as the owners, are convinced that this should be postponed. This is for a reason which the Minister glossed over when he said that it would have a minimal effect. That is purely a guess. No one can tell exactly what will be the effect, but the people involved in the industry are firmly convinced that it will be much greater than minimal. That is a second good reason why the date should be postponed.
Let us consider the alternative, the rail freightliners. In view of the rather slow growth in freightliner traffic since the service started and the much greater volume of traffic which would be transferred to the railways, it is very doubtful whether the freightliner service would be able to cope with the extra traffic within the time limits set by the Bill. Of all the road-ton mileage, 40 per cent. is now on journeys of more than 100 miles and will therefore be affected by quantity licensing. That is a considerable volume of traffic. Scotland would be particularly adversely affected, but that is a side issue and I cannot discuss it now. But all those are good reasons why the starting date should be postponed.

Mr. Bessell: It is probably a very good thing that our debate is inevitably limited by the terms of the Amendment. I am certain that if it were not, we should once more go over the arguments which, as the Minister has said, we went over at

great length in Committee and on Report and which showed the wide division between the two sides of the House.
While we are discussing the date when quantity licensing should come into force, I particularly regret the absence of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), for I am certain that he would have supported us, judging from his comments in Standing Committee. However, I recognise that he is in North America on very important Parliamentary business, which is why he cannot be with us.
However, the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) submitted some cogent arguments in favour of postponing the date. He made a number of comments which I wanted to make myself. I am glad that he did, because the Minister may feel able to take advice from one of his colleagues more naturally than from me on the Opposition side of the House.
There is one matter on which the Government cannot be in any doubt when deciding whether to accept their Lordships' Amendment. It is that for whatever reason—and I am not allowed to go into the reasons and nor would I wish to do so—which one may care to advance, there is a considerable division of opinion in the country.
The Minister said that he could not support the postponing of the date on the ground that there was universal opposition to this part of the Bill. He may be right. The opposition may not be universal, but I am certain that if the date were postponed and the Minister and his colleagues debated this subject up and down the country during the course of an election campaign, which would be the effect of accepting their Lordships' Amendment, they would find, if not unanimity in opposing this Measure, very powerful opposition which was certainly not confined to the Road Hauliers Association. By postponing the date, the Labour Party itself might come to realise that, to put it at its lowest, this was not an issue which was popular with the electorate.
If there was not a change, and if the Labour Party was returned to office in 1971, hon. Gentlemen opposite might, as a result of their experience of campaigning in the country on this issue, decide that it was right for them to change this


piece of legislation and not introduce it in its present form.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is conversant with public opinion in his part of the country. He ought to know what view is taken in my area. There is a large road haulage depot in my area, and many of my constituents are long-distance road haulage drivers. I have received only one letter from a driver while the Bill has been going through the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) must not allow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to tempt him to get out of order.

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), judging by the argument that he has advanced, might think that there is no value in postponing the date, but I do not think that that can be said to be the view of all hon. Members. As the hon. Gentleman said, I speak for my constituency. I shall not be a candidate at the next election, but I feel that this is a matter upon which the electorate will wish to make their views known to the candidates of the three respective parties, and indeed it might make a considerable difference in a constituency which, although not marginal, nevertheless has a small majority.
There is another strong reason for accepting the Lords Amendment and postponing the date. During the 1966 election campaign there was no indication that hon. Gentlemen opposite intended to introduce quantity licensing in this form. Therefore, by postponing its introduction until after the next General Election, there will be an opportunity to test public opinion. As the Minister rightly said, that is the only reason why the Amendment was introduced in another place. It was to get over the period until the next election, and to judge then, in the light of results, whether this should go forward.
I believe that there is another reason why time is needed. During the course of the debates today and yesterday—and particularly yesterday—we have all noted the valuable part which the freightliner

service is playing in the transport of goods. This is a service which is building up, and for which there is an ever-increasing demand, one which cannot be met adequately by the present services. When this Clause comes into effect, there will be an increased demand upon the freightliner service. Leaving aside the political considerations which I have been arguing, if we postpone the date to 1971 the freightliner services will have an opportunity to build up their resources, to open their new depots, to provide the new trains, new vehicles, and additional containers which will be necessary.
If there is not a postponement of the operative date, the result could be very considerable congestion in the freightliner section of the railways. This would do infinite damage to the service, because if consumers found that the service was not able to provide the best possible means of transportation there would be a temptation to do the very thing which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) said, namely, to take a load which exceeded 17 tons and divide it into two.
If we postpone the date, the danger of that happening is very much reduced. If we do not postpone it, the danger is very real because, the average consumer will say, "All right. I cannot use the freightliner service because it has not yet been built up to a point at which it can provide me with the degree of efficiency that I need, and, therefore, I have no alternative but to take the goods by road, and take them in two vehicles instead of one".

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: Despite everything that has been said by hon. Members opposite there is no doubt that when this part of the Bill comes into force there will be an immediate and substantial increase in the number of vehicles on the road.
By postponing the date the ill effects of the Clause may to some extent be mitigated. If we do not postpone the date, and if—as I have every reason to believe—people who are today conveying their goods from Cornwall to London decide to use two vehicles instead of one in order to escape the provisions of the Clause there will be a substantial increase in congestion. If we postpone the date there will at least be the advantage that the improvements which are taking place now—and I congratulate the Minister on the recent announcement in respect of improvements on the A38—will be partly completed and there will be less danger resulting from congestion than if the date is made effective within a short time.
I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). He summed up adequately and forcefully the reasons why their Lordships were right in suggesting this postponement. I shall not rehearse all the arguments. It is difficult to make the points one wants to make within the limited terms of this debate. I am merely thankful that I have not been called to order.

Mr. Marsh: With the permission of the House, I should like to say a few words on this subject. As has been said, the sole purpose of the Amendment is to put off the day. This is unacceptable to the Government, because to do so would be to limit the Government's degree of flexibility and fetter their discretion over the date. I have given the undertaking before, and I give it again, that quantity licensing will not be introduced until the Government are satisfied that the freight-liner service has proved itself in practice.
Having said that, if we accept the purpose of the Clause there seems no point in deliberately depriving the Government of freedom of action to introduce it at an earlier date than is provided in the Amendment if the freightliner service has proved itself by that time. I am confident that it will; indeed, it may do so before that date.
It has been suggested that we should postpone the quantity licensing provisions so that we can have a General Election on the topic of quantity licensing. It would be an unusual election, and some hon. Members on both sides of the House would find that the subject took up a

very small part of their election addresses. This is a technical subject of considerable interest to people in the industry and to a relatively small group of people who are also involved. But for anyone seriously to suggest that we should have a General Election to determine a mandate for the introduction of licensing for heavy goods vehicles is stretching things a little far.
A great deal of fear has been expressed that the quantity licensing system is so inflexible that this is another reason for putting it off—so that one can have the opportunity, presumably, of taking precautions. One hon. Member wanted to postpone it until ring roads had been built round cities. That would put it off for rather a long time. The provisions are far more flexible than the critics have tried to make out. There has been a degree of misunderstanding and a degree of deliberate misrepresentation. The fear that in some urgent cases goods will be ready to move but will be prevented from doing so because the railways cannot take them and the consignor does not have the right quantity licence is totally groundless.
Hon. Members have put forward as a reason for postponing this provision additional cost to industry in carrying goods by freightliners instead of road haulage. If there is additional cost, a licence cannot be given to force goods to go by rail. Hon. Members have expressed the fear that certain types of goods cannot be carried by freightliners.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is drifting into the merits of the Clause. We are discussing the date.

Mr. Marsh: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I am pointing out that the fears which have been advanced as reasons for postponing the introduction of the Clause are groundless and, therefore, the reasons for postponing the date are totally groundless. Some people have said that the date should be postponed because in some cases people's goods are liable to breakage. This is another case in which goods will not have to go by rail.
This matter has been argued at great length. Given the assurance that the new freightliner service will have proved itself before even this fairly minor piece of legislation is introduced, I see no reason for the House believing that it has lost its freedom of action.

Mr. Bessell: The Minister talks about the freightliner service proving itself. Does he mean that it will not be merely adequate to meet new demands but that there will not be the existing waiting list for use of the freightliner service?

Mr. Marsh: I mean even more than that. If there were long waiting lists and the facilities were not present, this of itself would be a reason for the goods going by road. We want an adequate network of freightliner terminals. Only when there is an adequate network will we beg n to introduce quantity licensing.

Mr. Peter Walker: The final words of the Minister illustrate the fallacy of his argument. If the time is reached when the freightliner trains have proved themselves to be successful, there will be no need for this ridiculous bureaucratic system of quantity licensing. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that quantity licensing will not be the main issue of the next general election campaign. I am the first to concede that the Government have provided as many issues which are as good as, if not better than, this one on which we can fight the next election.
I cannot think of anything which would be more in the national interest and less in the interests of a political party than this Amendment. It would be much to our party's advantage for quantity licensing to be introduced at the earliest opportunity because we should like the country to witness the absurd bureaucratic scheme which the Government have created for quantity licensing before the election. Kerbside scenes with lorries being stopped by officials and drivers being questioned as to whether they have travelled more than 100 miles as the crow flies would create the sort of situation which would show how absurd and ridiculous this scheme is.
It would be a good thing if the electorate were given the opportunity before the election to realise the additional costs involved in having no return loads without quantity licensing. I should like the Minister to be less reluctant than he is to introduce quantity licensing.
But in the national interest we thank the Minister for his reassuring statement, made the other day to the industry rather than to his party, in which he said that he could not envisage quantity licensing being introduced until a date which works

out in practice to the end of 1970. As October, 1970 is possibly the latest date on which a General Election is likely, we understand that to be a firm pledge on the Minister's part that he, at any rate, will not introduce quantity licensing.
In the spirit of that firm pledge, I want to tell him that after the General Election there will certainly be no quantity licensing of any description. If by chance the present Government have by then introduced quantity licensing—and I offer this as a warning that they should not create all the bureaucracy required for quantity licensing—the moment that we come to power we shall end any form of quantity licensing that has been introduced.
In not accepting the Amendment the Minister is not listening to the plea made by his Prime Minister. In January the Prime Minister told the country that he had instructed all Ministers to see that there was no net increase in the number of civil servants in their Departments. It is true that in the following four months there was an increase of 4,000 civil servants, but to assist the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I find it hard to see the connection between the argument and the Amendment.

Mr. Walker: It is very much connected with the Amendment. Presumably the Prime Minister wanted that instruction carried out over the next two or three years, so that by postponing the date until 1971 we should be assisting the Minister of Transport to carry out the Prime Minister's instruction that there should be no net increase in the number of civil servants.
The debate has been interesting. We heard from the hon. Member for Old-ham, East (Mr. Mapp)—and anyone who comes from Oldham will know how popular the Transport Bill was in the by-election fought in Oldham recently.

Mr. Mapp: As one who spent sometime in that by-election, I can assure the hon. Member that this aspect of transport was hardly in question at all.

Mr. Walker: Let me congratulate the hon. Member on having the political sense, when taking part in that by-election, not to mention the Transport Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is deciding whether this Clause shall come into operation on the appointed day or on the date in the Amendment.

Mr. Walker: We had a devastating attack on the whole system and a plea for deferring the date by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). We heard the spokesman of the Liberal Party. As has happened in every debate on quantity licensing, all the arguments have been against the Government. It is very much

in the national interest that this licensing proposal should be postponed until after a General Election, in the sure knowledge that when that General Election takes place a Government will be returned which will have nothing to do with quantity licensing.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 194.

Division No. 301.]
AYES
[10.14 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Ensor, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Alldritt, Walter
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lipton, Marcus


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lomas, Kenneth


Archer, Peter
Faulds, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Ashley, Jack
Finch, Harold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foley, Maurice
McCann, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.

MacColl, James


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacDermot, Niall


Barnett, Joel
Ford, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.


Baxter, William
Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael


Bence, Cyril
Fraser, John (Norwood)



Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bidwell, Sydney
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bishop, E. S.
Gardner, Tony
Mackie, John


Blackburn, F.
Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Boston, Terence
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Boyden, James
Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Manuel, Archie


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mapp, Charles


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marks, Kenneth


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Marquand, David


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hazell, Bert
Mendelson, J. J.


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Herbison, Rt, Hn. Margaret
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hilton, W. S.
Moonman, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Hobden, Dennis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Coe, Denis
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moyle, Roland


Concannon, J. D.
Howie, W.
Neal, Harold


Conlan, Bernard
Hoy, James
Newens, Stan


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ogden, Eric


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Cronin, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Albert E.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Park, Trevor


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dell, Edmund
Judd, Frank
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dewar, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Pentland, Norman


Dickens, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John


Ellis, John
Lector, Miss Joan
Rees, Merlyn


English, Michael
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.




Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Spriggs, Leslie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitaker, Ben


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitlock, William


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Swain, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Roebuck, Roy
Swingler, Stephen
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rowlands, E.
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Tim, James
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Sheldon, Robert
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Urwin, T. W.
Winnick, David


Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius
Wallace, George



Skeffington. Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Slater, Joseph
Weitzman, David
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Small, William
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Neil McBride




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Montgomery, Fergus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Raymond
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant, Anthony
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Nott, John


Balniel, Lord
Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Osborn, John (Hallam)


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Percival, Ian


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Bessell, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pounder, Rafton


Bitten, John
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hay, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heseltine, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Higgins, Terence L.



Braine, Bernard
Hill, J. E. B.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bryan, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hornby, Richard
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Royle, Anthony


Carnpbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)



Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharpies, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Frederick


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Corfield, F. V.
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul
Lubbock, Eric
Teeling, Sir William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Doughty, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Turten, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walters, Dennis


Calbraith, Hr. T. G.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Webster, David


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector
Wells, John (Maidstone)







Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. Jasper More and


Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Wilson. Geoffrey (Truro)
Wylie, N. R.

Further consideration of the Lords Amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Lords Amendments to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (TWO-TIER POSTAL SYSTEM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am glad to have been granted the opportunity to raise the question of the new two-tier postal system, and in the first week after the Summer Recess, because it is imperative that the Postmaster-General should tonight make a statement of the Government's intentions.
The new postal system which is now operated seriously affects the North of Scotland and my constituents, but it also is the cause of urgent concern and great exasperation in every part of the country. There is as much uncertainty and delay now as there was in the first days. In the history of this country since the introduction of the penny post there has been no single month in peace or in war in which so much confusion and irritation have been caused to the public by the postal service. How has this been allowed to happen in 1968, in the technological revolution? The Postmaster-General has some explaining to do tonight, and I assure him that I will leave him plenty of time in which to do so.
The present situation is not the fault of the Post Office staffs or the postmen: they are doing their best, and no doubt obeying instructions. The most significant shortcoming has been that the 5d. post has been almost as inefficient and unreliable as the 4d. post. The Postmaster-General cannot conceal that the new system has so far dismally failed. For how long will he regard the uncertainty and chaos as mere teething troubles?
Hon. Members and their constituents are only too familiar with what has been going wrong, but I will rehearse it briefly. First, there was a public relations campaign of unexampled ineptitude, considering what was later, in the event, to happen. The Postmaster-General himself is reported as saying on Monday that the advertising campaign was a disaster. It is harsh of him to blame the public relations advisers: he

has still to prove that the system itself will not be a disaster.
The two-tier system has had a very bad start. It tried to do two things at once without adequate preparation or evidence that it would work. The first was a clear attempt, and a clumsy one, to disguise a price increase in the hope that the public would be forced into increasing use of a 5d. rate. This I have described in a letter to the Postmaster-General as blackmail. The second objective appears to have been to have new sorting arrangements aimed to meet the fact that most letters are posted in the evening, and to do this by creating a priority class. On the second point, there is a challenge to be met—there is room for improvement—but this two-tier system is, in fact, causing serious deterioration in the efficiency of the service leading to uncertainty and inefficiency in the post generally, and there is the danger that the public will be left permanently with a worse service for which they are required to pay more.
The House will be familiar with many of the cases that have been reported in the Press or have been brought to hon. Member's notice, and I have sent to the Postmaster-General some of the worst examples I have had. Examples are the delaying of the second class, which the Postmaster-General's Department euphemistically describes as "deferring" the post, by which 4d. letters which are ready for delivery are apparently left lying in post offices. Then there are the 4d. letters for local addresses which are sent to local centres overnight many miles away and returned for delivery on the following day. Then there are the second journeys which country postmen have to make to farms with 4d. letters after they have been on the previous journey with the 5d. letters when the 4d. letters were available for delivery.
The worst feature has been that the confusion has also been in the 5d. so-called first-class post. I have sent the right hon. Gentleman an example of a letter bearing a 5d. stamp which took from Tuesday to Monday to go from Basingstoke to Forres in my constituency. I have two letters here which are another good example: they were sent by the same firm in Aberdeen to a constituent of mine. They arrived on the same day. One bore a 5d. stamp, the other a 4d.


stamp. The letter bearing a 5d. stamp was posted two days before that bearing the 4d. stamp. I have sent the Postmaster-General photostat copies of those two letters.
There are many such incidents which are causing great inconvenience and loss of confidence throughout the country. It is the unreliability of the first-class mail which is so disquieting. Today in the Press the Postmaster-General is reported as making what is described as a pre-debate statement. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for this post. There have been so many Postmaster-Generals. I am glad to see that one of the previous ones has turned up for this debate. However, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible as the Minister in charge while it has been introduced and for its early weeks.
In this statement the right hon. Gentleman is reported as saying—this is more worrying than anything: "The system has been going better than we expected." He must have been joking, because otherwise that is the most alarming statement of today. The statement goes on to compare percentages of first-class and second-class post which are reaching their destinations on the first or second day after delivery. The right hon. Gentleman compares these with the previous system.
There is an immense flaw in this argument, because it is a false analogy with the former first and second-class mail. The second-class mail in that system consisted only of unsealed letters—circulars, postcards, and so on. That was a different and inferior category from the 4d. mail as now presented. The volumes of the second-class mail are quite different. The present second-class mail includes the whole of the earlier second-class mail which went for 3d., but it also includes the greater part of ordinary letters being sent by people one to another. Therefore, that analogy of percentages, to which no doubt we shall be treated later this evening, will hold no water, because it does not compare like with like.
Then we come to the question of franking by firms. There are complaints from some areas that franked letters have to be handed in at post offices and can no longer be posted at letter boxes. There is also the question of sorting between

4d. and 5d. franked letters. In a Written Answer to me yesterday the Postmaster-General indicated that there were only six offices in the whole country with the new machines for mechanical sorting that tell the difference between a 5d. and a 4d. stamp and that by the end of 1968 only 15 more centres will have them. Until this machinery is available, it may be impossible to work this system without serious loss of efficiency and reduction of the previous speeds of delivery. This is owing to the amount of extra sorting compared with what was needed before 16th September which is now necessary.
Now, trade and industry. The complaint here is that little of the daily post is being delivered by the first morning post. This is a serious handicap to many business firms. Doctors and hospitals are complaining, too. Hospital administrations in some areas I now—perhaps in all—have given guidance that the 4d. post should be used except for packets being sent to pathology laboratories or for other urgent business. Doctors and others are complaining that letters making arrangements between hospitals, doctors and patients for appointments and other matters are taking as long as three days in the post.
Now, the legal point. Under Section 58 of the Post Office Act, 1953, it is an offence for any officer of the Post Office, contrary to his duty, to detain or delay or to procure or suffer to be delayed any postal packet, and someone guilty of such an offence is liable to fine or imprisonment. I hope that the Government will find time to explain the position of officials and postmen who are responsible for "deferring", as the word is, 4d. letters by leaving them for a later delivery although they are available for earlier delivery. Again, I say, it is not their fault; they are, no doubt, operating under instructions. But the principle of the Act has clearly been infringed.
The Government must act now to retrieve the situation. Is the Cabinet urgently considering an emergency operation to regain at least the former standards of delivery? It is essential to restore confidence in our postal services. If the Government are at a loss to know what to do, I make this suggestion for immediate action. [An HON. MEMBER: "Resign."] One of my hon. Friends says "Resign". That is an obvious course.


But they could announce a moratorium for an indefinite period during which the 5d. rate will be cancelled. With a uniform 4d. rate, the need for the present cumbersome sorting arrangements would disappear. Financially, the Post Office would benefit from the increase from the previous 3d. rate and from the reduction of the overtime now being worked.
I put this forward as a personal suggestion; it is entirely my own proposal. The 4d. rate could operate till the whole project of a two-tier post had been thought out again properly—and postponed or discarded if it could not be worked efficiently.
In the past month, we have had the astonishing spectacle of postmen working long hours of overtime on a system the effect of which is to cause delay and uncertainty. "Somewhere someone is waiting for a letter from you" was never more true.
As an industrial and exporting nation, we cannot afford to let our postal system deteriorate so that it is unreliable for all the offices and businesses which have to use it. To let letters lie for extra time in post offices when they are available for deilvery and men are there to deliver them, and already delivering other letters, is a misuse of our resources. It means a loss of efficiency throughout the country. The Government should treat this as an urgent matter of national importance.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: I intervene to make one point and one only—to protect against the failure of the Postmaster-General to make a statement about the two-tier system and thus give hon. Members the opportunity to question him about it.
This is the latest chapter of what is becoming a very shady story. Chapter I was the "phoney" presentation of the system, the highlighting of choice and the obscuring of the increase in price. Chapter two is even shadier. When the nation erupted as a man against this trick, the Postmaster-General tried to dodge the fury by ostentatiously dismissing or sacking the advertising agency, presumably signifying that that was where the fault lay. The fact was that he did not take the agency's advice, for otherwise we should not have had the presentation that we had. Finally, as

Parliament reassembles just as his Department is under fire and his staff are ashamed of what is being done in their name, he indulges in dodging worthy of the Prime Minister. Instead of making a statement here and facing the music, he settles for an Adjournment debate at a late hour, when he knows that he cannot be questioned. This can only appear as just an escape, which indeed it is.
We on this side of the House have been extremely restrained. During the first four weeks of the service, not a word did I utter, as the Front Bench spokesman on this subject. We let it have a go. From now on we shall be less restrained. The Postmaster-General knows, as no one else does, how genuinely concerned Members on both sides are about this system. They are concerned now, not in 10 days' or two weeks' time. Will he tell us what opportunity he means to give the House to put questions and express that concern?

10.42 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) for his rather extended point. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will also take note of his request.
I am also very grateful, as is the whole House, to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), who initiated the debate, because it is extremely useful to have this early opportunity to explain the operation of the two-tier system after one month. I am sure that the many people in the country who have been watching the development of the system will be delighted that in the first week after our return from the Recess we are devoting some time to it. The system is exciting a great deal of interest.
Good communications are absolutely essential for this country, and the Post Office intends to play its part in ensuring good communications. I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who are trying to make political points out of this that the postal service in this country is second to none in the world, both in terms of price charged for post delivered and reliability of service. The Government intend to keep it that way.
Furthermore, we recognise that over the past month, as we have had the biggest change in the operation of the postal system in Britain for 100 years, there was bound to be a great deal of interest in that change, particularly as the Post Office is very intimate to the lives of all our population. I have been following the correspondence in the Press with very great interest. One of the contributions to The Times that most interested me was from Mr. G. A. Boston, who said:
My first-class mail is reaching me promptly and my second-class mail is not unduly delayed. My telephone service is efficient and courteous. What am I doing wrong?".
The most interesting contribution that I have had in my postbag is an extract from a letter which The Times did not publish. This explains why a great many complaints are being raised about the two-tier system. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will pay attention to this communication from Mr. L. Snow, 84 Ealing Road, Wembley.

Sir Ronald Russell: He is a Socialist alderman.

Mr. Stonehouse: Mr. Snow writes:
Many complaints about the postal service are being published in your and other newspapers. They probably represent only a proportion of the total received. They give the impression of a vast area of dissatisfaction.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Stonehouse: Wait for it.

Mr. James Dance: Mr. James Dance (Bromsgrove) rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: It goes on:
Yet if only 1 per cent. of mail delivered daily went adrift, and if only 1 per cent. of the recipients felt obliged to write a complaint about it, this would amount to 3,500 complaints a day.
That is the measure of the problem.
We are achieving in this country a more reliable service than any other country achieves. We are the envy of the world in this respect. In a few moments I shall give the House some figures about this reliability of service, but I will, first, say why the two-tier system was introduced.
The system has been considered in the Post Office for 10 years, and it has been planned for the last three or four years,

and it has been introduced because it is logical and reasonable that tariff charges should be related to the quality of service and not to the contents of the envelope. This makes absolute sense not only for the Post Office, but for the poster, because the person posting an envelope under a two-tier system can decide what priority he gives to the envelope, and if he is prepared to pay an extra penny for a speedier service then he can make his choice, but if he is satisfied with the slower service it is open to him to pay a smaller amount.
The Post Office has certain financial objectives to reach. It is significant that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite ran away from these responsibilities when they were in office. They failed to make a profit in the postal services during the last years when they were in power because they did not have the courage to put up the tariffs. We, however, are conscious not only of our responsibilities to the customers, but of our responsibilities to the taxpayers as a whole.

Mr. Dance: Mr. Dance rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: That is why we are determined that the Post Office shall meet its financial objectives while giving the best possible efficient service to the nation and maintaining the lowest possible prices. As the House knows, any fair comparison with countries overseas demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that our postal rates are less than those in almost any other country in the world even at the new rates, and, although our prices are less, we are still making a profit, whereas most other administrations in the world make a loss.

Mr. Dance: Mr. Dance rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: I have little time at my disposal and cannot give way.
The two-tier system was, therefore, a sensible move in order to give the poster the opportunity of choice. It is also a sensible move for the Post Office itself, because it enables the Post Office to spread the work load. The problem within the Post Office has been dealing with the peaks of mail that have been coming in in the late evening. The two-tier system enables us to put the less urgent mail on one side so that it can be sorted during the next day when staff are available.
The two-tier system has been in operation for just a month. Nobody expected that all the teething troubles would be sorted out within a few weeks, but I stick by the statement that I made yesterday. We are delighted by the progress that this system has made considering that hon. Gentlemen opposite were talking about a boycott just over four weeks ago. We hear little talk about that now, and the percentage of first-class traffic that was predicted by the Post Office in its planning before two-tier came into operation is almost achieved.
When two-tier began we had a percentage of first-class traffic of 25 per cent. That has been climbing, and I am able to announce to the House that it has now reached 30 per cent. Furthermore, the division of traffic is producing the income that we had anticipated in order to meet our financial objectives.
I would now like to say a word about reliability of service. Though I accept that there have been many genuine complaints because of the 1 per cent. failure rate that we have had—I do not diminish the importance of this failure rate and we will do our best to eliminate it—the hon. Gentleman must give credit to the Post Office for achieving a lower failure rate than any other administration in the world. Indeed, most industries would be delighted if their failure rate, particularly in the public services, were as low as 1 per cent.
The first-class service that we aim to give to our customers is delivery the next day in most places. We are already achieving a 94 per cent. delivery the day after posting for first-class mails. This is a very remarkable achievement.

There is 5 per cent. of the mail which cannot be delivered the next day either because of bad addressing or the physical problems involved. We have a failure rate of only 1 per cent., that is to say, mail which is delayed for three or more days.
I would like to assure the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn that there is no question of any deliberate or unnecessary delays with second-class mail. As we have explained, there is a separate scheduling for the second-class mail so that it can be dealt with less expensively than first-class mail, and that first-class mail can be given the requisite priority, which we guarantee.
The advertised service for the second-class mail is that it should normally arrive on day C, which is the day after first-class mail would arrive, and we are already achieving this for 93 per cent. of the second-class mail.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite read the Financial Times. I was interested to see today in that newspaper a result of a survey conducted by the C.B.I. The C.B.I, posted 302 envelopes as first-class mail—[An HON. MEMBER: "Read the headline."]—I do not read the headline, I read the facts, and if the hon. Gentleman will follow me and take a serious—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.